Mohammad Gadhafi was undoubtedly an unpleasant despot — there are a few tyrants who are “nice” — , vengeful, not in the least enlightened. When I was a kid, in my History classes, I used to find the expression “enlightened despot” very funny. Full of whims, Gadhafi always gave a lot of work to the ceremonial and security services of the First World countries which he visited as an official guest. He demanded to sleep in tents, outdoors, even in cities like Rome, New York and Paris. He was not afraid to affront the representatives from the world´s biggest powers or the CEOs from very rich Western oil companies – even though he was fully conscious that money is power. And power gets everything it wants when it has, by itself, the privilege to mold the public opinion at will. Gadhafi dared – some say – to tear the United Nations Charter in half in the middle of the UN´s General Assembly. Notwithstanding the theatrics of such an act, he had his reasons, considering such Letter was not conceived to impose governing styles. It was made to force equally every nation, weak or strong, to respect the others, without interfering in their internal affairs.
As informed by the media, Gadhafi kept billions of dollars abroad, in accounts from the Libyan Central Bank and other governmental institutions. As his decisions could not be contested by anybody, the money deposited in such accounts could be – in theory – withdrawn by Gadhafi himself for his or his family´s personal use. On the other hand, as those accounts were under the name of governmental institutions, this fact ended up being beneficial to Libya, which was able to keep the money reserves deposited abroad. Had the money been deposited in banks located inside Libya, such wealth would have already been stolen during the many months of intense and confuse conflict.
As mere intuition from an amateur psychologist, I risk “diagnosing” — future biographers might say whether I am right or wrong — that Gadhafi took anphetamins, a kind of drug which, when used without restrictions, may cause a “persecution complex” once the initial euphoria fades away. In his case, by the way, the paranoia was highly recommendable because it kept him in constant alert against a plethora of enemies who wanted his place. Having taken hold of power illegally in 1969 at the age of 27, he knew he could only count on force and intimidation because it was through such components of the political fight — in a country with little alphabetizing — that he became Libya´s “strong man”. He achieved such status in September of 1969 through a “coup d’etat”. Leading a group of military officials, he took power while the king, Idris — the first and only Libyan king —, was away from the country. Idris, a religious monarch with a fragile health, was taken in by Egypt after his deposition, and lived in that country – apparently very comfortably – until he passed away in 1983. There was no drop of blood in the 1969 “coup”.
Notwithstanding his numerous bad qualities — not even the Devil himself is perfect in his evilness—, Gadhafi benefitted the Libyan people when, right after becoming the country´s “owner”, he demanded a higher share for the country in the profits derived from the oil extracted by the powerful Western companies as a counterpart for them to be able to continue operating in his land. He knew the companies had no other choice than to accept that condition, as it ended up happening – it would have been an economical suicide to abandon the profitable investment they had already done. And his boldness started being imitated in the other countries of the Middle East which were equally rich in oil and gas, which partly explains why Gadhafi was so hated by the rich countries from the West.
With the Arab nations unified in such interests – i.e., oil – the price of the barrel started increasing, which caused consternation among the Western countries which were, up to that point, used to giving Libya and the other Middle East countries only the crumbles of their profits. Such raises in prices seemed to the West as an authentic extortion, taking advantage of a source of energy which was impossible to replace. They swore that one day Gadhafi would pay for such stimulation to “blackmail”.
And he finally paid in October 20, 2011, even though it was stealthily through the hands of others: Libya´s own people, revolting against years of tyranny. To save the appearances it was necessary that the Libyan rebels, and not NATO, did the “dirty work”. It is important to notice that NATO pilots, aware or assuming that Gadhafi was in the car convoy which was fleeing the city, did not bomb nor shot the vehicles — as they had been constantly doing before — in order to avoid the risk of killing the dictator. The order to the pilots — or the flight controllers for that matter – was probably something like the following: “Just stop him from escaping! Do not kill him! Once the convoy is stopped, it will be reached by the rebels who will surely kill him, something much more practical than a public trial – after all, who knows what he would have said as his defense in a trial? If NATO planes kill him directly, we will be violating the Geneva Convention. That would be an act of war. And in this war it is a crime to kill an enemy who has surrendered. Legally, we are not “at war”, we are only favoring one of the sides, protecting Libyan population”. And so it happened. The rebels got hold of Gadhafi, lynched him and killed him. It would have sounded really bad, legally and politically, if foreign powers, NATO members, had killed a chief of state in his own country. Such a maneuver has a very popular metaphor: “pull the sardine with the cat´s hand” (or simply use someone else´s hand to do what you want to be done).
Analyzing the subject through an International Law angle, it is important to state that the United Nations Charter does not authorize the assassination of Chiefs of State on behalf of other States, be it under their own name or through military organizations such as NATO. And what happened in Libya was exactly the use of what is forbidden: foreign air force shooting and bombing the military forces of a country which was surrounded and was not accused of aggression. Gadhafi had attacked neither the US, nor the UK, nor France. An article written by a specialist in the subject, Roberto Godoy, published in “O Estado de S. Paulo” from last October 21, pg A-24, reveals that NATO was providing cover for the advancement of the rebels, “assured by intense and daily air bombings from the 180 airplanes provided by an international coalition”.
If this does not represent a disrespect to the free determination of the people, a clear act of war, there is no way to know what is a war. In order to be characterized as such, an aggression doesn´t have to be made with troops marching on land. If that was the case, strong nations would be able to throw nuclear bombs to crush any country without being accused of aggression. A single plane could do the “job”, much more devastatingly than millions of soldiers on foot. And in Libya there were tens of planes attacking the governmental forces. It is too much innocence, or else interpretative malice, to say that the presence of foot soldiers is indispensable to characterize the use of force under an International Law perspective. The use of air force is decisive to win wars nowadays. There was, in the Libyan case, a powerful and lethal interference from other countries, NATO members, to depose a governor. And this is without mentioning the presence, on land, of tens of foreign advisors guiding the rebels on how to articulate the attacks against the tyrant – as well as the supply of weapons.
About tyrannies, International Law has not reached yet the point of allowing countries to invade others in order to remove governors which they deem as tyrants, with reason or not. If the people are sovereign, as doctrine says, they can support a dictator which seems beneficial to them, even fairer than paper democracies. It is certain that democracy, in theory, is better than a dictatorship, but that does not authorize nations or coalitions to invade countries in order to remove non-democratic governors.
Someone could say that NATO interfered with the aerial attacks for a noble reason, defending human rights, because the dictator had been killing rebels, his own citizens — who, it is fair to say, were also willing to spank and kill the tyrant.
If the argument of “nobility” is worth anything in theory, let´s imagine the following scenario: suppose a million Americans meet in front of the White House, in Washington D.C., protesting against Barack Obama´s economical policies. Over-excited, the rioters threaten to invade the gardens of the White House. The police intervenes with tear gas and rubber bullets. Two rioters die and the even angrier crowd tries to enter the building. The police starts shooting real bullets. Then there is a massacre. If the conflict spreads to other cities, we can ask: would China, for example, have the “humanitarian” right to give aerial support to the “massacred population”, bombing the White House and the Pentagon? Wouldn´t this hypothetical Chinese attitude be a distortion on the “human rights protection”? Economical and diplomatic sanctions are acceptable under the international human rights perspective, but intense bombings mean a clear bellicose interference in other countries´ internal affairs, which is something forbidden – at least in theory. Therefore, Gadhafi had his rights when he allegedly tore the United Nations Charter in half.
A detail to which public opinion must remain alert in the future – in order to find out the real motivations behind the bellicose aerial support against Gadhafi — is whether the new Libyan government will owe money to the NATO countries or not. I reckon that the “oil factor” is at the top of the reasons for the aerial invasion and the lynching —“ by proxy”— of the tyrant.
Here´s an important question: will, by any chance, the new Libyan government have to pay for the weapons received from the Americans, French and British? Will NATO´s expenses with airplanes, bombs, ammunition and military assistance on land be reimbursed? If that occurs – which would be extremely cynical — the hidden intentions for the aerial and tactical support to the rebels will be proved: oil! And with Libya´s finances as unorganized as they currently are after months of anarchy, the country will probably only be able to pay such debts with oil drilling grants. In addition to oil, what other way would Libya have to pay the debt? It is still unknown whether Libyan´s deposited money abroad would be enough to pay for the expenses incurred by the NATO countries.
Chinese companies (as well as companies from other non-NATO countries) also drill the Libyan oil. Will they be able to resume their operations in Libya when the country is under a new government – or will only the USA, France and the UK be able to handle Libyan oil? This detail is very important to verify if the fall of Gadhafi was motivated only by the defense of the human rights or if there are any “oily” political ambitions behind it.
Murder – whether it is direct or by Power-of-Attorney – still impregnate international politics, a practice that was imagined to be “out-of-fashion”. On the other hand, Gadhafi´s assassination is an alert for tyrants that they are no longer able to defend themselves with the old day´s efficiency.
The exercise of power is pleasant. And when power is absolute — as in Kadhafi´s case — it is extremely pleasant. Which explains why every governor — even presidents of Western democracies — wants to remain in power till he dies. And sometimes even after that, through a son or other successor, which proves that the “monarchy gene” still impregnates the human genetic code.
Every governor would like to be the founder of an infinite dynasty. “Never for the love of power, of course. I love my people when they praise me!” It is very rare for a president not to want to return to power. Even Barack Obama himself wants to keep his job for as long as the law allows him to, which explains his sudden change of mentality regarding international situations. In a matter of weeks he changed from a “pigeon” into a “falcon”. If the electors want more toughness, let´s be “really tough”, “otherwise I might lose the election”. Putin left when it was impossible for him to continue in power, but his intention is to get it back as soon as he can. The same is true in the whole planet. And tyrants have no longer the luxury of leaving, because the chances of being murdered are really high. That is one of the reasons why democracy - even when corrupted – are superior to dictatorships. In the latter, whoever gets to a power position doesn´t want and can´t leave, at a risk of death. In democracies, no one wants to leave, but at least they can do that.
To the Libyans, in a long term, Gadhafi´s demise was beneficial, but things will get worse before improving, for months or even years. People of normal sensibility did not enjoy the brutality in which the fall of the tyrant happened. It would have been better if his demise had happened in a more civilized way. In a court of Law, he might have revealed more interesting things, scaring other Chiefs of State.
This article´s considerations also have the aim to suggest that readers in general are fully aware of the clever maneuvers of international politics, which deems itself smarter than it really is.
(October 23, 2011)
Friday, November 11, 2011
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Timely Initiative of a Newspaper
On page A18 of the “O Estado de S.Paulo” newspaper dated 25-9-11, there is a short text that can be considered an innovation to be followed — or amplified, if such a practice already exists — by all newspapers not exclusively destined for readers that are specialized in a particular area. The article is not concerned with narrating an event currently developing in international politics — the normal task of newspapers. It was written with the objective of enlightening readers with respect to a relevant topic which, in general, is not widely known to the public. The text to which I am referring is a “mini-lesson” in Public International Law.
Without including any brief pedagogical “help” — and the article in question was a clear example of this —, columns of printed news lose a lot of their usefulness. Of course, they are understood by professionals in the area — who are already familiar with the topic, probably more so than the author of the material — but the absence of a timely theoretical explanation makes the “non-initiated” steer clear of that page of the newspaper. An absence of such explanation is to the cultural detriment of ordinary citizens, who come to see the world in an incomplete or distorted manner. One day, such ill-informed citizens make their opinions known in petitions, become members of NGOs, form the majority in public opinion and vote in elections — getting it right less often, because they do not sufficiently understand how far-reaching their votes are. Only by chance is ignorance a good counselor.
This is very common in the field of Economics, principally when the topic concerns foreign exchange, the stock exchange, overseas trade and inflation. Many readers think: “I sometimes attempt to read such news and articles, although I frequently cannot understand the meaning of some technical terms. Please excuse my ignorance, but I am not going to read these articles with the help of an Economics dictionary. And even with a dictionary, I will likely continue to remain “in the dark”, as the author does not “come down to my level” to explain why a certain consequence — for example, valuation or devaluation of a given currency, for example, is the “inevitable” result of a particular event, as the author of the news or article gives one to understand, without providing a clear basis as to why he or she thinks in this way”. On television, this occurs in an even more evident manner. An example is the reporter who speaks with impressive “professional self-assuredness”, like a lecturing parrot, on a cause-and-effect relationship that he himself would not know how to explain in his own words. The cliché is elegant, but to me it seems like deception.
If the mission of the newspaper, any newspaper, is that of informing, and informing well — if it is that of falsifying the truth, may it soon go bankrupt — the omission of a quick and timely “technical” explanation results in a double prejudice: cultural (as I already mentioned) and commercial (for the newspaper). Its readers remain “excluded”, perplexed. Although curious, many come to avoid certain sections — or the whole newspaper — supposing that they will be incapable, as they would like, of forming their own opinion. Therefore, even from a business point of view — losing regular readers or occasional purchasers of copies — it would be advisable for newspapers to introduce short explanations when news reports involve topics in such specialized areas as Economics, Information Technology, Science, Law and International Relations. The editors of these specialized sections normally have sufficient awareness to judge whether or not such and such a technical term or relationship between phenomena needs a little “help” in order to ensure clear understanding on the part of the reader. When in doubt, it would be best to explain.
What is impressive and shows just how much the intellectual can be contaminated by universal vanity is that the parts that are most difficult to understand — “deep, mysterious and sophisticated’ — are really neither “deep” nor “mysterious”. They are only sophisticated. More an “affectation” than inherent complexity. If a professional feels some kind of understandable pleasure in being “inaccessible”— “After all, why did I study so much? I need to show off!” — it is necessary to remind him that his opinions and messages will only be of use if the listener or reader manages to adequately understand them. Nourishment, physical and mental, can only be assimilated after being chewed and digested by the acid of critical judgment. Even this should be mistrusted, given that a certain amount of deceit impregnates all activities. Without it, however, richness withers.
The article that led me to write these lines is undersigned by Bruna Ribeiro and is entitled “A state does not need the UN in order to exist”. As I had never heard or read anything by this columnist, I conducted a search on the internet in order to obtain some information about her. After some time — there are numerous homonyms —, I found that the Bruna in question is a very young, objective and active person. On 22-05-11, she interviewed Prof. Francisco Rezek, ex-chancellor and ex-judge of the International Court of Justice, for the “O Estado de S.Paulo” newspaper, and this interview comes with the following title: “The war on terror violates international law”. It should be read by all those interested in International Politics, given that political reality is frequently in conflict, in an open or disguised manner, with International Law. In all certainty, there is no Law more fickle, susceptible to dual interpretation of the facts, than International Law, where the raw reality of strength — political, diplomatic, economic and military — both uses and abuses in the elaboration of sophisms.
Aggressor governments never admit to be aggressors. Hitler never confessed to being an unprovoked invader. Every attack is a “just defense reaction”, “correction of a historical injustice” or defense against an imminent future attack, detected by the “intelligence service” — far too smart. Each “sovereignty”, being absolute — an authentic “vice” that is still not perceived as such — encourages the strong to abuse the weak, sometimes without any kind of sovereignty as they are not even States. Only “entities”. And “entities” do not enjoy sovereignty. Any protest, verbal or physical, made by the citizens of a fully-fledged State, or entity, is labeled as an insult or terrorism, requiring “exemplary punishment” that is much harsher than the damage incurred. Exaggerated punishment is dependent upon likely international impunity, nurtured by disinformation on the part of media organizations that are actually directed to mislead. Hence it is the desire of every country that values truth to have a press that is concerned with adequately enlightening the public. And, as I have already indicated, for this to occur, there is also a need to explain that which is published, when necessary. It is the case of the possibility, or impossibility, of the existence of a new State, even without its formal admission by the United Nations.
As Bruna Ribeiro’s article explained — perhaps with a few pedagogic suggestions on the part of Francisco Rezek —, a State does not need the UN in order to exist. It is one thing to actually exist; however, it is another to obtain legal recognition of its existence by an important international agency. In 1945, if the world had not created the United Nations, would current states not exist? Of course they would. Individuals whose birth has never been recorded at a registry office do not therefore cease to exist. Such people are not phantoms. They have their rights recognized in a court of law.
If I retain a caretaker to look after my ranch, and the birth of this caretaker has never been recorded at a registry office, such an omission does not mean that I am not obliged to pay his salary. An international example, purely theoretical: if member countries of the UN were to decide, even unanimously, to exclude China from its list of countries — due to its invasion of markets with low prices, or violation of human rights — would this State cease to exist? Of course not. It would become a somewhat “pariah” State, although it would continue to be a State, unless China itself renounces its status in a “sovereign” manner. And any other country would have the right to change its mind, always in a “sovereign” manner, and recognize China as a State, maintaining the same relations with it as those maintained with other member countries of the UN.
According to the information provided by Bruna Ribeiro, Taiwan is recognized by 22 countries. It will be difficult for this enormous island to gain recognition at UN level in the near future, given that China, with the power of veto, will not allow it, as it considers Taiwan to be part of continental China. Even though it is not a “registered” State, such a lack of “registration” does not prevent Taiwan from having an important role to play in industry, commerce, science and even international relations. In addition, the explicatory article in question informs us that Israel, although a full member of the UN, is not recognized by 22 States - obviously, for political reasons.
Elementary, isn’t it? However, in millions of minds the notion exists, albeit rather ill-founded, that without a bid on the part of Palestine for full UN membership, the Palestinian State will only “exist” if a prior agreement is reached with Israel, the country that has the greatest interest in the Arab population not being able to enjoy full member status. If, theoretically, Israel never agrees to a Palestinian State, would such a decision, based on force, merit universal approval?
It is therefore appropriate that many countries have now decided to recognize the existence of the Palestinian State, or whatever other name it may come to have. The fact that it does not have delimited borders — because its arch-enemy is opposed to this — results in serious administrative problems, although such problems do not diminish the existence of a people, with a common language, inhabiting a territory for centuries, however difficult their day-to-day lives may be. Israel, a member State of the UN, also does not have fixed borders on its eastern side. Given that, in 1948, the State of Israel dispensed with any need for the agreement of Arabs in the region in order to proclaim itself a State, there is nothing that prevents the Palestinians from doing the same thing.
Irrespective of the extent to which they bring problems, uncertain disputed boundaries cannot be allowed to prevail over the greater principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. If — another mere example —, a conflict were to arise between Mexico and the United States and the latter were to achieve the exclusion of Mexico at the UN — because it is unable to control illegal immigration and drug trafficking at the border — would a State called Mexico simply “disappear”?
It is paradoxical that the precise branch of Law that is most important for the future of humanity is the most ignored by the inhabitants of the planet, perhaps due to it being “something remote and rarely complied with”. Here one is dealing with a branch of Law that is apparently ignored (?!) even by those responsible, at the highest level, for the international relations of their countries. Iran is a case in question, as it could have withdrawn decades ago from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), — signed in 1968 by the government of the Shah of Persia, Mohamed Reza Pahlavi —, although it has not done so to date. Issue of an official document would suffice to confirm its withdrawal. The Israeli government makes great political use of this “bureaucratic” omission, stating that Iran does not “fulfill its international treaty obligations”. Given that Israel, shrewdly, has not even signed the treaty, it has been free to do whatever it so desires, building and storing nuclear weapons.
According to the aforementioned NPT, whoever has signed the treaty is able to withdraw from it as long as prior notice is given of ninety (90) days. In the withdrawal notice, it is sufficient for the signatory to the treaty to state that it wishes to withdraw for reasons of threats to its national security. And there is no lack of public threats, on the part of Israel, of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.
Three months after withdrawing from the NPT, Iran would be free from inspections in the nuclear area. The development of its nuclear capabilities would not be infringing the terms of any treaty whatsoever. It should be noted that the five permanent members of the Security Council are nuclear powers, together with India, Pakistan and Israel. The Iranian omission of requesting its withdrawal from the NPT — as North Korea has already done — is something inexplicable. Could it be that Iran is apprehensive that its withdrawal, at the present time, would seem to be a confession that it intends to build nuclear weapons? It would be sufficient to state that this is not its intention. Following a request by Iran for withdrawal from the NPT, the USA and its allies would need to invent many legal artifices to justify the argument that “earlier, whoever signed could withdraw; now it is no longer possible to do so! They forget that which is explicitly written in the treaty!”
Am I, by chance, in favor of the increased risk of destruction of mankind, via nuclear conflict and radioactive contamination? Certainly not. I am only a realist who believes that fear can be used for both good and evil. I am of the same opinion as the Swede Alfred Nobel, when reasoning with a woman in favor of universal disarmament, when he said that “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war even sooner than your congresses. On the day when two army corps may mutually annihilate each other in a second, probably all civilized nations will recoil with horror and disband their troops” (initial page of the book “Human Smoke”, by Nicholson Baker).
Without mutual fears — of the same dimensions —, the aggressive beast man cannot resist the temptation of swaggering and dominating. Although a great speaker, it is a pity that Barack Obama has neither exceptional familiarity with the twin topics “world peace and order”, nor sufficient intellectual audacity to promote, at the UN, the possibility of the Israel-Palestine conflict being resolved by an international court. Without an external solution to this issue, the world will continue to be confronted by imminent catastrophe.
In closing, I would like to point out that International Law is ill-understood and, for this reason, newspapers should make an effort to educate their readers. Newspapers are also devastated by wars. How many newspapers existed in Germany when it signed its surrender in 1945? Perhaps a handful of journalists writing in the midst of the rubble.
(1º-10-2011)
Website: www.franciscopinheirorodrigues.com.br
Blog in English: http://francepiroenglish.blogspot.com/
Blog in Portuguese: http://francepiro.blogspot.com/
Without including any brief pedagogical “help” — and the article in question was a clear example of this —, columns of printed news lose a lot of their usefulness. Of course, they are understood by professionals in the area — who are already familiar with the topic, probably more so than the author of the material — but the absence of a timely theoretical explanation makes the “non-initiated” steer clear of that page of the newspaper. An absence of such explanation is to the cultural detriment of ordinary citizens, who come to see the world in an incomplete or distorted manner. One day, such ill-informed citizens make their opinions known in petitions, become members of NGOs, form the majority in public opinion and vote in elections — getting it right less often, because they do not sufficiently understand how far-reaching their votes are. Only by chance is ignorance a good counselor.
This is very common in the field of Economics, principally when the topic concerns foreign exchange, the stock exchange, overseas trade and inflation. Many readers think: “I sometimes attempt to read such news and articles, although I frequently cannot understand the meaning of some technical terms. Please excuse my ignorance, but I am not going to read these articles with the help of an Economics dictionary. And even with a dictionary, I will likely continue to remain “in the dark”, as the author does not “come down to my level” to explain why a certain consequence — for example, valuation or devaluation of a given currency, for example, is the “inevitable” result of a particular event, as the author of the news or article gives one to understand, without providing a clear basis as to why he or she thinks in this way”. On television, this occurs in an even more evident manner. An example is the reporter who speaks with impressive “professional self-assuredness”, like a lecturing parrot, on a cause-and-effect relationship that he himself would not know how to explain in his own words. The cliché is elegant, but to me it seems like deception.
If the mission of the newspaper, any newspaper, is that of informing, and informing well — if it is that of falsifying the truth, may it soon go bankrupt — the omission of a quick and timely “technical” explanation results in a double prejudice: cultural (as I already mentioned) and commercial (for the newspaper). Its readers remain “excluded”, perplexed. Although curious, many come to avoid certain sections — or the whole newspaper — supposing that they will be incapable, as they would like, of forming their own opinion. Therefore, even from a business point of view — losing regular readers or occasional purchasers of copies — it would be advisable for newspapers to introduce short explanations when news reports involve topics in such specialized areas as Economics, Information Technology, Science, Law and International Relations. The editors of these specialized sections normally have sufficient awareness to judge whether or not such and such a technical term or relationship between phenomena needs a little “help” in order to ensure clear understanding on the part of the reader. When in doubt, it would be best to explain.
What is impressive and shows just how much the intellectual can be contaminated by universal vanity is that the parts that are most difficult to understand — “deep, mysterious and sophisticated’ — are really neither “deep” nor “mysterious”. They are only sophisticated. More an “affectation” than inherent complexity. If a professional feels some kind of understandable pleasure in being “inaccessible”— “After all, why did I study so much? I need to show off!” — it is necessary to remind him that his opinions and messages will only be of use if the listener or reader manages to adequately understand them. Nourishment, physical and mental, can only be assimilated after being chewed and digested by the acid of critical judgment. Even this should be mistrusted, given that a certain amount of deceit impregnates all activities. Without it, however, richness withers.
The article that led me to write these lines is undersigned by Bruna Ribeiro and is entitled “A state does not need the UN in order to exist”. As I had never heard or read anything by this columnist, I conducted a search on the internet in order to obtain some information about her. After some time — there are numerous homonyms —, I found that the Bruna in question is a very young, objective and active person. On 22-05-11, she interviewed Prof. Francisco Rezek, ex-chancellor and ex-judge of the International Court of Justice, for the “O Estado de S.Paulo” newspaper, and this interview comes with the following title: “The war on terror violates international law”. It should be read by all those interested in International Politics, given that political reality is frequently in conflict, in an open or disguised manner, with International Law. In all certainty, there is no Law more fickle, susceptible to dual interpretation of the facts, than International Law, where the raw reality of strength — political, diplomatic, economic and military — both uses and abuses in the elaboration of sophisms.
Aggressor governments never admit to be aggressors. Hitler never confessed to being an unprovoked invader. Every attack is a “just defense reaction”, “correction of a historical injustice” or defense against an imminent future attack, detected by the “intelligence service” — far too smart. Each “sovereignty”, being absolute — an authentic “vice” that is still not perceived as such — encourages the strong to abuse the weak, sometimes without any kind of sovereignty as they are not even States. Only “entities”. And “entities” do not enjoy sovereignty. Any protest, verbal or physical, made by the citizens of a fully-fledged State, or entity, is labeled as an insult or terrorism, requiring “exemplary punishment” that is much harsher than the damage incurred. Exaggerated punishment is dependent upon likely international impunity, nurtured by disinformation on the part of media organizations that are actually directed to mislead. Hence it is the desire of every country that values truth to have a press that is concerned with adequately enlightening the public. And, as I have already indicated, for this to occur, there is also a need to explain that which is published, when necessary. It is the case of the possibility, or impossibility, of the existence of a new State, even without its formal admission by the United Nations.
As Bruna Ribeiro’s article explained — perhaps with a few pedagogic suggestions on the part of Francisco Rezek —, a State does not need the UN in order to exist. It is one thing to actually exist; however, it is another to obtain legal recognition of its existence by an important international agency. In 1945, if the world had not created the United Nations, would current states not exist? Of course they would. Individuals whose birth has never been recorded at a registry office do not therefore cease to exist. Such people are not phantoms. They have their rights recognized in a court of law.
If I retain a caretaker to look after my ranch, and the birth of this caretaker has never been recorded at a registry office, such an omission does not mean that I am not obliged to pay his salary. An international example, purely theoretical: if member countries of the UN were to decide, even unanimously, to exclude China from its list of countries — due to its invasion of markets with low prices, or violation of human rights — would this State cease to exist? Of course not. It would become a somewhat “pariah” State, although it would continue to be a State, unless China itself renounces its status in a “sovereign” manner. And any other country would have the right to change its mind, always in a “sovereign” manner, and recognize China as a State, maintaining the same relations with it as those maintained with other member countries of the UN.
According to the information provided by Bruna Ribeiro, Taiwan is recognized by 22 countries. It will be difficult for this enormous island to gain recognition at UN level in the near future, given that China, with the power of veto, will not allow it, as it considers Taiwan to be part of continental China. Even though it is not a “registered” State, such a lack of “registration” does not prevent Taiwan from having an important role to play in industry, commerce, science and even international relations. In addition, the explicatory article in question informs us that Israel, although a full member of the UN, is not recognized by 22 States - obviously, for political reasons.
Elementary, isn’t it? However, in millions of minds the notion exists, albeit rather ill-founded, that without a bid on the part of Palestine for full UN membership, the Palestinian State will only “exist” if a prior agreement is reached with Israel, the country that has the greatest interest in the Arab population not being able to enjoy full member status. If, theoretically, Israel never agrees to a Palestinian State, would such a decision, based on force, merit universal approval?
It is therefore appropriate that many countries have now decided to recognize the existence of the Palestinian State, or whatever other name it may come to have. The fact that it does not have delimited borders — because its arch-enemy is opposed to this — results in serious administrative problems, although such problems do not diminish the existence of a people, with a common language, inhabiting a territory for centuries, however difficult their day-to-day lives may be. Israel, a member State of the UN, also does not have fixed borders on its eastern side. Given that, in 1948, the State of Israel dispensed with any need for the agreement of Arabs in the region in order to proclaim itself a State, there is nothing that prevents the Palestinians from doing the same thing.
Irrespective of the extent to which they bring problems, uncertain disputed boundaries cannot be allowed to prevail over the greater principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. If — another mere example —, a conflict were to arise between Mexico and the United States and the latter were to achieve the exclusion of Mexico at the UN — because it is unable to control illegal immigration and drug trafficking at the border — would a State called Mexico simply “disappear”?
It is paradoxical that the precise branch of Law that is most important for the future of humanity is the most ignored by the inhabitants of the planet, perhaps due to it being “something remote and rarely complied with”. Here one is dealing with a branch of Law that is apparently ignored (?!) even by those responsible, at the highest level, for the international relations of their countries. Iran is a case in question, as it could have withdrawn decades ago from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), — signed in 1968 by the government of the Shah of Persia, Mohamed Reza Pahlavi —, although it has not done so to date. Issue of an official document would suffice to confirm its withdrawal. The Israeli government makes great political use of this “bureaucratic” omission, stating that Iran does not “fulfill its international treaty obligations”. Given that Israel, shrewdly, has not even signed the treaty, it has been free to do whatever it so desires, building and storing nuclear weapons.
According to the aforementioned NPT, whoever has signed the treaty is able to withdraw from it as long as prior notice is given of ninety (90) days. In the withdrawal notice, it is sufficient for the signatory to the treaty to state that it wishes to withdraw for reasons of threats to its national security. And there is no lack of public threats, on the part of Israel, of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.
Three months after withdrawing from the NPT, Iran would be free from inspections in the nuclear area. The development of its nuclear capabilities would not be infringing the terms of any treaty whatsoever. It should be noted that the five permanent members of the Security Council are nuclear powers, together with India, Pakistan and Israel. The Iranian omission of requesting its withdrawal from the NPT — as North Korea has already done — is something inexplicable. Could it be that Iran is apprehensive that its withdrawal, at the present time, would seem to be a confession that it intends to build nuclear weapons? It would be sufficient to state that this is not its intention. Following a request by Iran for withdrawal from the NPT, the USA and its allies would need to invent many legal artifices to justify the argument that “earlier, whoever signed could withdraw; now it is no longer possible to do so! They forget that which is explicitly written in the treaty!”
Am I, by chance, in favor of the increased risk of destruction of mankind, via nuclear conflict and radioactive contamination? Certainly not. I am only a realist who believes that fear can be used for both good and evil. I am of the same opinion as the Swede Alfred Nobel, when reasoning with a woman in favor of universal disarmament, when he said that “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war even sooner than your congresses. On the day when two army corps may mutually annihilate each other in a second, probably all civilized nations will recoil with horror and disband their troops” (initial page of the book “Human Smoke”, by Nicholson Baker).
Without mutual fears — of the same dimensions —, the aggressive beast man cannot resist the temptation of swaggering and dominating. Although a great speaker, it is a pity that Barack Obama has neither exceptional familiarity with the twin topics “world peace and order”, nor sufficient intellectual audacity to promote, at the UN, the possibility of the Israel-Palestine conflict being resolved by an international court. Without an external solution to this issue, the world will continue to be confronted by imminent catastrophe.
In closing, I would like to point out that International Law is ill-understood and, for this reason, newspapers should make an effort to educate their readers. Newspapers are also devastated by wars. How many newspapers existed in Germany when it signed its surrender in 1945? Perhaps a handful of journalists writing in the midst of the rubble.
(1º-10-2011)
Website: www.franciscopinheirorodrigues.com.br
Blog in English: http://francepiroenglish.blogspot.com/
Blog in Portuguese: http://francepiro.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Justice for the Palestinians at the UN
On the upcoming Friday (Sept. 23), Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority (AP), is going to present at the General Assembly a formal request for the acknowledgement of his people as a member of the United Nations (UN).
The majority of the international public opinion is more than favorable to such a modest request, even aware of the certain veto which will be exercised by the United States and perhaps also by some other countries which are shamelessly submissive to the whims of the American huge economical, technological and military power – as much as this power has recently been going through a demoralizing outbreak of amnesia when it comes to the genial moral values cultivated by the Founding Fathers of the USA.
Among such forgotten values is the respect to the right of self-determination of the people. Or, by chance, can´t the Palestinians be considered as a “people”? Would the Palestinians merely be – as their enemies want – a primitive mass of sub-human individuals, ergo without rights? A band of savages, bandits or “pariahs”, without even the right to speak and vote in an organization which supposedly “represents” the planet? What kind of distorted representation is this? The UN currently has 193 countries, some of which have minimal populations, smaller than the number of Palestinians who have been banned from their homeland and have to live by the grace of others in precarious tents or shelters in neighboring countries. What is their “crime”, which could justify such Arabic Diaspora? None. They have just been there for centuries.
Any consultation to a website such as the Wikipedia will show that many of the members of the UN have a lowermost population, a reduced area and absolutely no influence in international geopolitics. We have nothing against the possibility for such countries to be heard and to be able to vote at the General Assembly, since every situation of injustice suffered by any number of people deserves a means to be expressed and discussed in an international entity. What is difficult to understand – and therein lies the legitimacy of AP´s intension — is how people who have been banned from a territory which they had occupied for more than two thousand years (and therefore arousing angry and merciless feelings of sympathy and vengeance from people such as Osama Bin Laden) — cannot have access to a legal international channel such as the UN to complain against treatment deemed to be unfair. No people can indefinitely tolerate the progressive occupation of its land and the expulsion of thousands of families.
Let us compare the populations of the following members of the UN: Andorra (71.822 inhabitants in 2007); Antigua and Barbuda (86.754 inhabitants in 2010); Bahamas (323.000 in 2005); Bahrain (791.000 in 2009); Belize (372.000 in 2010); Brunei (381.371 in 2009); Cabo Verde (499.796 in 2008), Granada (90.343 in 2008); not to mention numerous others micro-states. Why this scarce right to express and vote shall remain inaccessible to the Palestinians, who have lived for decades in a situation of submission, restriction to the right to come and go, poverty and banishment?
This systematic discrimination and “inferiorization” creates an atmosphere that breeds a deep resentment, which can consequently be easily expressed through acts of terrorism - terrorism that is unmistakenably sincere in its motivation, considering that nobody immolates or “explodes” himself for banal reasons. It is necessary to remember that the Israeli people have also had their “outlaw phase”, admittedly terrorist in the first half of the 20th century — the Irgun organization, which in April, 1946, blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem —, when the British opposed the excessive arrival of Jewish people in the Holy Land. The British forecast then the inevitable increase in the conflicts — already in place at that time — and such drama continues and is aggravated with the illegal settlements. As long as the conflict between Arabs and Israelis is not solved, the world will remain “contaminated”, in the anti-chamber of a global conflict. The risk of the “atomic spice”— i.e., Iran — was added to the soup of hatred which boils and can overflow and burn even areas which are far from the Palestine, considering the importance of the oil which is extracted from neighboring countries – rumors are already in place regarding the gas and oil sources which are dormant off shore, deep within the Mediterranean Sea.
Let us examine now the Jewish´s reasons. They also have endured a secular drama of persecutions – however, once they reached the Promised Land, such persecution ended, and now that they have the superior status of “Israeli”, they have forgotten what it means to be humiliated, to live with no rights, “under the knife”, impoverished by force and turned into second-class citizens – such as what happens now to the Palestinians. It is not uncommon, in the history of mankind, for the persecuted to become the persecutor.
It is only natural that the long-suffering Jews dreamt, for centuries, of having their own nation. And that is exactly what was granted to them after the Second World War ended, thankfully in great part to the indignation caused by the Holocaust. Hitler, with his implacable anti-Semitism, is also responsible for the conflict in the Middle East. Had there not been his policy of persecution and banishment, the European Jews would have remained where they were, climbing the social ladder in the areas of finance, arts and so forth. It is necessary to remember that the Arabs did not agree with the creation of the Israeli State. But their opinion was not even asked. Israel did not result from a direct “negotiation” between the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs, so much so that once the Israeli State was created in 1948, a war between Israel and the Arabic world started almost immediately – a war which Israel, being better prepared and armed by the USA, got the better of. With victory, arrogance flourished. And as a current atomic power, Israel does not admit, under any circumstance, the possibility for another country in the region — such as Iran — to have access to technology which might one day allow the construction of an atomic weapon (about this subject, please read the words of the creator of the Nobel Prize in the end of this article).
It is therefore incoherent the current Israeli intention to demand that the creation of a Palestinian State only happens as a result of “direct negotiation”, since such negotiation did not occur at the time of the creation of the Israeli State. Regardless of any agreement with the Arabs, a new Nation was created, nation which is currently the best armed of the Middle East, not only regarding atomic weaponry, but also conventional ones.
Benjamin Netanyahu´s demand for a new and eternal return to the “negotiation table” is nothing more than a strategy to gain time, allowing for the amplification of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Any person who has followed for years the advancements (fictitious and scarce) and retreats (constant) of the peace negotiations knows that as long as Netanyahu remains in power, the “negotiations” will not reach any solution. And that is exactly what this politician wants, a man whose greatest ambition is to be remembered in the future as the creator of “The Great Israel”, built through low and abject tactics, through the tactics of “pushing with the belly”, of procrastination. The longer it takes, the better the relative position of Israel in an eventual division of the territories is, because Israel is building thousands of houses while the Palestinians have barely the resources to survive.
Israel has not been lucky enough to put in a position of power a man of a superior mind, in the likes of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Gandhi or Frank D. Roosevelt. Netanyahu is a patriot in the most primitive sense of the word. Clever, insistent, unpreoccupied with the truth, he is untrustworthy when it comes to speaking about anything related to the Palestine. He is a typical example of a “mad lawyer”, which means that he is capable of any fallacy to favor his own client – in his case Israel —, even if this means to throw the Palestinian elders, children and youth in a hopeless misery. Elementary human rights are denied to the Palestinians.
As I have already said, the ancient yearning of the Jewish people spread all over Central and Eastern Europe is perfectly understandable. With Hitler´s rise to power, even the Jews who accepted a racial “assimilation”, with a loss of cultural identity, were rejected in their pretension. Hitler, a pathological maniac, prohibited the marriage between Germans (the “pure breed”) and Jews. He did everything he could to fanatically “clean” Germany and the countries he invaded, all of them dominated by a race which he considered inferior both physically and morally – which is one of the biggest scientific nonsenses of all times. He even oriented his secret service to discreetly stimulate the Zionism, which had the ultimate purpose of creating a Jewish nation – what he actually wanted was to get rid of all of them, once and for all. When persuasion was exhausted, he decided to implement the “final solution”. Many countries, even though publicly repudiating the Jewish suffering under the Nazi regime, refused to accept the migration of Jewish people to their territories. Hence, the understandable search, by the Jews, for an area which could become their own State. There was no conscious intent to harm the Palestinian Arabs who lived there, but who could have prevented and stopped the continuous arrival of people of the same race and belief searching for a better life?
Deep down, the worst current political problem lies in the answer to a simple dilemma: the Jewish people deserved to have a “home”, but the chosen house was too small, was already inhabited and did not have space for two big families. Only through some modification in the traditional concept of sovereignty it would be possible to accommodate two large families in the same place. It is necessary, however, for help to come from the outside, i.e., from the international community. Fortunately, there is still room in the planet to accommodate a few Israelis and Palestinians. Africa, for example, is enormous. The planet has already paid enough for the lack of boldness in the improvement of the concept of sovereignty. The UN, or any other tribunal/court created by it, has plenty of conditions and is much more able to solve, without bias, this ancient conflict than the two parties involved, parties which have already been poisoned by resentment and desires of vengeance. Every civilized country has already found out, throughout history, that when neighbors get in an argument and are unable to reach an understanding, the solution is to appeal to a superior stance, which can listen to both parties´ arguments and decide, sovereignly – and the party which loses the matter must abide by the decision, whether wanting or not. No country can impose its sovereignty by crushing by force or intimidation its neighbor’s own sovereignty.
Barack Obama has already said he will veto the acknowledgement of the Palestinian State because only the two parties involved are able to reach a permanent solution. Why does he say so, despite the persistent failure of all previous negotiations? Because he needs the lobbying, money and the vote of the Jews in his next presidential election. Deep down inside, he antagonizes Netanyahu haughtiness, ever the arrogant, responding with resounding “No´s!” to Obama´s requests to contain the occupation of the West Bank.
The arrogance of the Israeli Prime Minister comes from the certainty that Obama prefers to be elected for a second term than to be fair to a small defenseless people who has been humiliated for years. On the other hand, here is what Obama probably thinks but doesn´t say: “I will give in now to Netanyahu´s interests but, when I am re-elected, I will put him in his right place. It is the only possible action for the moment. Besides, if the Republican Party, with the Jewish lobby, wins the election, the Palestinians will be in a much worse situation. I need to act like a patient chess player. But obviously I can never publicly reveal what I really think.” This must be Obama´s plan. If not, we will witness the decadence of a man who is intelligent but does not have the necessary moral fiber to face people who are more determined than himself.
The ideal thing in the upcoming Sept. 23rd would be for the Palestinian Authority, the USA or the European Union, in an outburst of lucidity, to suggest, discuss and finally allow for the UN to approve the creation of an international court to solve the Palestinian issue. Such court, “ad hoc” — or even the already existing International Court of Justice — would define the borders of both states and determine compensations when it was not feasible to strictly follow the 1967 delimitations. It would then create the Palestinian State where the Gaza Strip is territorially linked to the West Bank and solve the issue of the return of the banished Palestinians. Only then we would at last find peace and a huge reduction in terrorism. Such court should advisably not have as members any judge who is from an Arabic or Jewish descent, for obvious reasons.
It is also necessary for the UN to correct another impressive absurd: the refusal of jurisdiction. Whoever wants to be “part of the club”, the UN, must accept its rules and judgment. The ones who will not accept such terms should simply get out. It is appalling that in the 21st century it is still possible for an accused party to refuse being judged and that the UN respects such a refusal.
Nicholson Baker, author of the book “Human Smoke”, mentions, in the first page of his work, that Alfred Nobel, manufacturer of explosives, was talking to his friend, Baroness Bertha von Suttner (author of “Lay Down Your Arms” and co-founder of the European Pacifist Movement) after she had just participated in the World Peace Conference in Bern. It was August of 1892. Here is what he said:
“Maybe my factories will end wars before your congresses. In the day when two Armies are capable of mutually annihilating themselves, it is possible that every civilized nation retreat in horror and dismantle their troops”.
This measured opinion comes in favor of the argument that no country in the Middle East should have the privilege of conventional, atomic and diplomatic power. Excessive force induces its bearer to see the weak as defenseless insects. Hence the need to concede something substantial to the Palestinians when their president speaks at the General Assembly next Friday. A minimum of personality is demanded from the ambassadors of all voting countries who, even being sympathetic to the Palestinians, are unable to obey their own conscience. Remember that, Nigeria.
(September 19th, 2011)
Website: www.franciscopinheirorodrigues.com.br
Blog in English: http://francepiroenglish.blogspot.com/
Blog in Portuguese: http://francepiro.blogspot.com/
The majority of the international public opinion is more than favorable to such a modest request, even aware of the certain veto which will be exercised by the United States and perhaps also by some other countries which are shamelessly submissive to the whims of the American huge economical, technological and military power – as much as this power has recently been going through a demoralizing outbreak of amnesia when it comes to the genial moral values cultivated by the Founding Fathers of the USA.
Among such forgotten values is the respect to the right of self-determination of the people. Or, by chance, can´t the Palestinians be considered as a “people”? Would the Palestinians merely be – as their enemies want – a primitive mass of sub-human individuals, ergo without rights? A band of savages, bandits or “pariahs”, without even the right to speak and vote in an organization which supposedly “represents” the planet? What kind of distorted representation is this? The UN currently has 193 countries, some of which have minimal populations, smaller than the number of Palestinians who have been banned from their homeland and have to live by the grace of others in precarious tents or shelters in neighboring countries. What is their “crime”, which could justify such Arabic Diaspora? None. They have just been there for centuries.
Any consultation to a website such as the Wikipedia will show that many of the members of the UN have a lowermost population, a reduced area and absolutely no influence in international geopolitics. We have nothing against the possibility for such countries to be heard and to be able to vote at the General Assembly, since every situation of injustice suffered by any number of people deserves a means to be expressed and discussed in an international entity. What is difficult to understand – and therein lies the legitimacy of AP´s intension — is how people who have been banned from a territory which they had occupied for more than two thousand years (and therefore arousing angry and merciless feelings of sympathy and vengeance from people such as Osama Bin Laden) — cannot have access to a legal international channel such as the UN to complain against treatment deemed to be unfair. No people can indefinitely tolerate the progressive occupation of its land and the expulsion of thousands of families.
Let us compare the populations of the following members of the UN: Andorra (71.822 inhabitants in 2007); Antigua and Barbuda (86.754 inhabitants in 2010); Bahamas (323.000 in 2005); Bahrain (791.000 in 2009); Belize (372.000 in 2010); Brunei (381.371 in 2009); Cabo Verde (499.796 in 2008), Granada (90.343 in 2008); not to mention numerous others micro-states. Why this scarce right to express and vote shall remain inaccessible to the Palestinians, who have lived for decades in a situation of submission, restriction to the right to come and go, poverty and banishment?
This systematic discrimination and “inferiorization” creates an atmosphere that breeds a deep resentment, which can consequently be easily expressed through acts of terrorism - terrorism that is unmistakenably sincere in its motivation, considering that nobody immolates or “explodes” himself for banal reasons. It is necessary to remember that the Israeli people have also had their “outlaw phase”, admittedly terrorist in the first half of the 20th century — the Irgun organization, which in April, 1946, blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem —, when the British opposed the excessive arrival of Jewish people in the Holy Land. The British forecast then the inevitable increase in the conflicts — already in place at that time — and such drama continues and is aggravated with the illegal settlements. As long as the conflict between Arabs and Israelis is not solved, the world will remain “contaminated”, in the anti-chamber of a global conflict. The risk of the “atomic spice”— i.e., Iran — was added to the soup of hatred which boils and can overflow and burn even areas which are far from the Palestine, considering the importance of the oil which is extracted from neighboring countries – rumors are already in place regarding the gas and oil sources which are dormant off shore, deep within the Mediterranean Sea.
Let us examine now the Jewish´s reasons. They also have endured a secular drama of persecutions – however, once they reached the Promised Land, such persecution ended, and now that they have the superior status of “Israeli”, they have forgotten what it means to be humiliated, to live with no rights, “under the knife”, impoverished by force and turned into second-class citizens – such as what happens now to the Palestinians. It is not uncommon, in the history of mankind, for the persecuted to become the persecutor.
It is only natural that the long-suffering Jews dreamt, for centuries, of having their own nation. And that is exactly what was granted to them after the Second World War ended, thankfully in great part to the indignation caused by the Holocaust. Hitler, with his implacable anti-Semitism, is also responsible for the conflict in the Middle East. Had there not been his policy of persecution and banishment, the European Jews would have remained where they were, climbing the social ladder in the areas of finance, arts and so forth. It is necessary to remember that the Arabs did not agree with the creation of the Israeli State. But their opinion was not even asked. Israel did not result from a direct “negotiation” between the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs, so much so that once the Israeli State was created in 1948, a war between Israel and the Arabic world started almost immediately – a war which Israel, being better prepared and armed by the USA, got the better of. With victory, arrogance flourished. And as a current atomic power, Israel does not admit, under any circumstance, the possibility for another country in the region — such as Iran — to have access to technology which might one day allow the construction of an atomic weapon (about this subject, please read the words of the creator of the Nobel Prize in the end of this article).
It is therefore incoherent the current Israeli intention to demand that the creation of a Palestinian State only happens as a result of “direct negotiation”, since such negotiation did not occur at the time of the creation of the Israeli State. Regardless of any agreement with the Arabs, a new Nation was created, nation which is currently the best armed of the Middle East, not only regarding atomic weaponry, but also conventional ones.
Benjamin Netanyahu´s demand for a new and eternal return to the “negotiation table” is nothing more than a strategy to gain time, allowing for the amplification of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Any person who has followed for years the advancements (fictitious and scarce) and retreats (constant) of the peace negotiations knows that as long as Netanyahu remains in power, the “negotiations” will not reach any solution. And that is exactly what this politician wants, a man whose greatest ambition is to be remembered in the future as the creator of “The Great Israel”, built through low and abject tactics, through the tactics of “pushing with the belly”, of procrastination. The longer it takes, the better the relative position of Israel in an eventual division of the territories is, because Israel is building thousands of houses while the Palestinians have barely the resources to survive.
Israel has not been lucky enough to put in a position of power a man of a superior mind, in the likes of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Gandhi or Frank D. Roosevelt. Netanyahu is a patriot in the most primitive sense of the word. Clever, insistent, unpreoccupied with the truth, he is untrustworthy when it comes to speaking about anything related to the Palestine. He is a typical example of a “mad lawyer”, which means that he is capable of any fallacy to favor his own client – in his case Israel —, even if this means to throw the Palestinian elders, children and youth in a hopeless misery. Elementary human rights are denied to the Palestinians.
As I have already said, the ancient yearning of the Jewish people spread all over Central and Eastern Europe is perfectly understandable. With Hitler´s rise to power, even the Jews who accepted a racial “assimilation”, with a loss of cultural identity, were rejected in their pretension. Hitler, a pathological maniac, prohibited the marriage between Germans (the “pure breed”) and Jews. He did everything he could to fanatically “clean” Germany and the countries he invaded, all of them dominated by a race which he considered inferior both physically and morally – which is one of the biggest scientific nonsenses of all times. He even oriented his secret service to discreetly stimulate the Zionism, which had the ultimate purpose of creating a Jewish nation – what he actually wanted was to get rid of all of them, once and for all. When persuasion was exhausted, he decided to implement the “final solution”. Many countries, even though publicly repudiating the Jewish suffering under the Nazi regime, refused to accept the migration of Jewish people to their territories. Hence, the understandable search, by the Jews, for an area which could become their own State. There was no conscious intent to harm the Palestinian Arabs who lived there, but who could have prevented and stopped the continuous arrival of people of the same race and belief searching for a better life?
Deep down, the worst current political problem lies in the answer to a simple dilemma: the Jewish people deserved to have a “home”, but the chosen house was too small, was already inhabited and did not have space for two big families. Only through some modification in the traditional concept of sovereignty it would be possible to accommodate two large families in the same place. It is necessary, however, for help to come from the outside, i.e., from the international community. Fortunately, there is still room in the planet to accommodate a few Israelis and Palestinians. Africa, for example, is enormous. The planet has already paid enough for the lack of boldness in the improvement of the concept of sovereignty. The UN, or any other tribunal/court created by it, has plenty of conditions and is much more able to solve, without bias, this ancient conflict than the two parties involved, parties which have already been poisoned by resentment and desires of vengeance. Every civilized country has already found out, throughout history, that when neighbors get in an argument and are unable to reach an understanding, the solution is to appeal to a superior stance, which can listen to both parties´ arguments and decide, sovereignly – and the party which loses the matter must abide by the decision, whether wanting or not. No country can impose its sovereignty by crushing by force or intimidation its neighbor’s own sovereignty.
Barack Obama has already said he will veto the acknowledgement of the Palestinian State because only the two parties involved are able to reach a permanent solution. Why does he say so, despite the persistent failure of all previous negotiations? Because he needs the lobbying, money and the vote of the Jews in his next presidential election. Deep down inside, he antagonizes Netanyahu haughtiness, ever the arrogant, responding with resounding “No´s!” to Obama´s requests to contain the occupation of the West Bank.
The arrogance of the Israeli Prime Minister comes from the certainty that Obama prefers to be elected for a second term than to be fair to a small defenseless people who has been humiliated for years. On the other hand, here is what Obama probably thinks but doesn´t say: “I will give in now to Netanyahu´s interests but, when I am re-elected, I will put him in his right place. It is the only possible action for the moment. Besides, if the Republican Party, with the Jewish lobby, wins the election, the Palestinians will be in a much worse situation. I need to act like a patient chess player. But obviously I can never publicly reveal what I really think.” This must be Obama´s plan. If not, we will witness the decadence of a man who is intelligent but does not have the necessary moral fiber to face people who are more determined than himself.
The ideal thing in the upcoming Sept. 23rd would be for the Palestinian Authority, the USA or the European Union, in an outburst of lucidity, to suggest, discuss and finally allow for the UN to approve the creation of an international court to solve the Palestinian issue. Such court, “ad hoc” — or even the already existing International Court of Justice — would define the borders of both states and determine compensations when it was not feasible to strictly follow the 1967 delimitations. It would then create the Palestinian State where the Gaza Strip is territorially linked to the West Bank and solve the issue of the return of the banished Palestinians. Only then we would at last find peace and a huge reduction in terrorism. Such court should advisably not have as members any judge who is from an Arabic or Jewish descent, for obvious reasons.
It is also necessary for the UN to correct another impressive absurd: the refusal of jurisdiction. Whoever wants to be “part of the club”, the UN, must accept its rules and judgment. The ones who will not accept such terms should simply get out. It is appalling that in the 21st century it is still possible for an accused party to refuse being judged and that the UN respects such a refusal.
Nicholson Baker, author of the book “Human Smoke”, mentions, in the first page of his work, that Alfred Nobel, manufacturer of explosives, was talking to his friend, Baroness Bertha von Suttner (author of “Lay Down Your Arms” and co-founder of the European Pacifist Movement) after she had just participated in the World Peace Conference in Bern. It was August of 1892. Here is what he said:
“Maybe my factories will end wars before your congresses. In the day when two Armies are capable of mutually annihilating themselves, it is possible that every civilized nation retreat in horror and dismantle their troops”.
This measured opinion comes in favor of the argument that no country in the Middle East should have the privilege of conventional, atomic and diplomatic power. Excessive force induces its bearer to see the weak as defenseless insects. Hence the need to concede something substantial to the Palestinians when their president speaks at the General Assembly next Friday. A minimum of personality is demanded from the ambassadors of all voting countries who, even being sympathetic to the Palestinians, are unable to obey their own conscience. Remember that, Nigeria.
(September 19th, 2011)
Website: www.franciscopinheirorodrigues.com.br
Blog in English: http://francepiroenglish.blogspot.com/
Blog in Portuguese: http://francepiro.blogspot.com/
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Kadhafi´s warrant of arrest and the Rome Statute
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has asked all countries for the imprisonment of Muamar Kadhafi, accusing him of crimes against humanity. With all due respect, either the Court should alter its procedural rules or its prestige will keep suffering consecutive and undeserved disturbances. The first time such a thing happened was when the Court issued a (still unfulfilled) warrant of arrest against Sudan´s President, Omar Bashir, who is still, until this date, freely travelling around every country he chooses without being bothered at all – in fact, he has just been welcomed with all honors by the Chinese President on June 28, 2011. The same thing might very well happen with Kadhafi.
But where is, as far as I understand, the fragile point of the current procedural system of the International Criminal Court? It rests in the possibility – an obligation even, as better detailed ahead – of arresting chiefs of state without a previous trial. In other words, first the Court arrests and only afterwards it tries the accused. This goes in opposition to the general legal tendency, which tries to prevent long imprisonments before the accused has a proper trial. If the accused is an older person and dies in prison before proven guilty – which is not unlikely, considering trials can last many years due to a great number of witnesses, exhaustively detailed defenses and so forth – his political followers (who are always there, somewhere) might very well say, whether it is the truth or not, that the deceased was just a martyr, a victim of a judicial system stained by political bias.
In Brazil, for example, dominant legislation and jurisprudence (both of which are in clear need of some changes for being too soft) determine that the accused is only considered guilty of a crime when the sentence is no longer subject to an appeal – only then he can be properly arrested. A preventive arrest is only tolerated as a guarantee that a convicting sentence will be fulfilled when the accused has neither a proper residence nor the means to live, or when there is serious evidence (?!) that he might escape once he is aware of his conviction. Even the most severe Brazilian jurists – who are very concerned about white collar crimes – suggest the lawmakers that a convict should only be put under arrest during the trials which are ulterior to a first or second sentence. One or two properly examined convicting sentences are on their own a strong evidence that the accused is indeed guilty. As for the ICC in the cases of Bashir and Kadhafi, it is requiring the arrest of chiefs of state without any previous conviction.
Article 63 of the Rome Statute determines that “1 - The accused must be present during his trial”. In there lies the explanation for the inconvenient paralysation of the most important lawsuits, stimulating a global aura of inefficiency in a Court which is very necessary to lessen the impunity of powerful criminals who have not been properly punished in their own nations. This good purpose – i.e., to punish those who deserve to be punished – needs to be adapted to the reality.
And which reality is that? The reality in which chiefs of state who are involved in bloody battles – by either killing or defending themselves abusively, or even both – will never voluntarily attend the International Criminal Court. And the ICC will find practical difficulty to arrest the accused because the country where he is – his own country or any other where he might be visiting — does not authorize the arrest, using the principle of sovereignty as an excuse. Even if the accused eventually feels compelled to attend, if only to improbably justify himself, he will never dare to put his freedom at risk. After all, he knows that in the Court there will be an entrance gate, but not an exit one. His victims, almost always individually unknown to him – will have already been heard. The Court will be influenced – if not vexed – since the beginning by the barbarian reports it will have heard, without which the process wouldn´t even have started. It is important to note that in this initial phase the accused´s witnesses are not heard (unless I am mistaken).
The instructing judge will almost certainly determine the arrest of the accused which has attended the trial either before or after its deposition, as a guarantee that he will be present at the final stage – the trial itself. At the latter, as already mentioned, he “must be present” (art. 63). Every chief of state in the position of “accused” will be under the (not always wrong) impression that behind all the legal framework there is a political interest – which there always in, in varied degrees. When the political or religious violence starts, brutal attacks from both sides are almost a certainty. In addition to that, not every barbaric act committed in vast and deflagrated regions derive from an order issued by the chief of state, whether he is a tyrant or not. Sadistic subordinates also enjoy any opportunity they have to give in to their tendencies.
As I have already mentioned in a previous article, Kadhafi is no model governor. He is a despot, and very far from being an enlightened one. And rumor has it that he has millions of dollars in some off-shore bank accounts - a probable burden to his country. The only thing that is left to know – in order to legally support or not the revolted people – is the level of spontaneous support which he has from the total population. It is even possible theoretically – theoretically – that he has more followers than enemies, and if such is the case, NATO would be legally wrong for not respecting the currently in force principle of sovereignty, a concept which, although agonizing — because it leads to manifest abuses —, still appears in the legal manuals as a rule to be respected.
To recap everything, it is necessary that the Rome Statute goes through modifications as follows: when subpoenaed — or its equivalent act — the accused shall be invited to attend. If such a thing doesn´t happen, the lawsuit against him shall move on until the end, with or without the declaration of preventive arrest, which would happen under the discretion of the Court. Even when absent, his lawyers would proceed with his defense. If the Court should want to hear his verbal explanations – to “attest” his sincerity – he might be interrogated from a distance, in front of a television or computer monitor. Nowadays there are plenty of technological devices easily available to study the “body language” of the person who is being interrogated, even thousands of kilometers away. Questions and answers might be followed live all over the planet, lending transparence to the process. Should the Court insist on having him physically present, it would have to give him an absolute guarantee that he would not be arrested should he agree to attend the deposition. However, it is very unlikely that the accused would believe such a promise.
Once the conviction is determined, only then a legitimate “hunt for the criminal” can start. Perhaps, in the future, even with the use of “commands”, something like what happened with Adolfo Eichmann, caught in Argentina by the Mossad. It would then be an arrest with much more global acceptance — after all, the ICC aims for global justice — because there would at least have been a public trial with all defense mechanisms available to the accused.
Such a new system would be much better that having a really important criminal case being stopped because the accused is absent – which is what happens nowadays. And we have to admit that the presence of the accused is not that important for the trial of a case. After all, most of the times the accused lies for his own benefit. Not to mention that his lawyers, who are more experienced than him, know better what is best to be revealed and what is best to be left unsaid.
There are certain procedural rigors which, as a paradox, for being too threatening, end up collaborating with impunity. Such is the case under analysis: since it is not possible to preventively arrest the powerful accused, the latter can brag about not being tried and enjoying a presumption of innocence.
I am unsure whether the aforementioned arguments ignore any legal or philosophical detail which would justify the current system, which, at the end of the day, involuntarily favors great criminals. Should there be any strong argument in favor of the current system, it is necessary for public and legal opinion to make it known. Even if it is to examine it and verify if it is based on common sense – this spice which should never be absent from the judicial activity. Especially in the international trials which have a political and/or religious component, where the notions of right and wrong are poisoned by pre-conceptions learned from childhood. Besides, the UN´s Security Council is not a temple for religious people whose only concern is to save souls. And that´s where the request to arrest the rude and arrogant Kadhafi stemmed from.
May the present article serve at least to provoke a reexamination of a procedural detail which is very important to the prestige and the well-functioning of a Court which was established with the best of intents.
(July 1st, 2011)
But where is, as far as I understand, the fragile point of the current procedural system of the International Criminal Court? It rests in the possibility – an obligation even, as better detailed ahead – of arresting chiefs of state without a previous trial. In other words, first the Court arrests and only afterwards it tries the accused. This goes in opposition to the general legal tendency, which tries to prevent long imprisonments before the accused has a proper trial. If the accused is an older person and dies in prison before proven guilty – which is not unlikely, considering trials can last many years due to a great number of witnesses, exhaustively detailed defenses and so forth – his political followers (who are always there, somewhere) might very well say, whether it is the truth or not, that the deceased was just a martyr, a victim of a judicial system stained by political bias.
In Brazil, for example, dominant legislation and jurisprudence (both of which are in clear need of some changes for being too soft) determine that the accused is only considered guilty of a crime when the sentence is no longer subject to an appeal – only then he can be properly arrested. A preventive arrest is only tolerated as a guarantee that a convicting sentence will be fulfilled when the accused has neither a proper residence nor the means to live, or when there is serious evidence (?!) that he might escape once he is aware of his conviction. Even the most severe Brazilian jurists – who are very concerned about white collar crimes – suggest the lawmakers that a convict should only be put under arrest during the trials which are ulterior to a first or second sentence. One or two properly examined convicting sentences are on their own a strong evidence that the accused is indeed guilty. As for the ICC in the cases of Bashir and Kadhafi, it is requiring the arrest of chiefs of state without any previous conviction.
Article 63 of the Rome Statute determines that “1 - The accused must be present during his trial”. In there lies the explanation for the inconvenient paralysation of the most important lawsuits, stimulating a global aura of inefficiency in a Court which is very necessary to lessen the impunity of powerful criminals who have not been properly punished in their own nations. This good purpose – i.e., to punish those who deserve to be punished – needs to be adapted to the reality.
And which reality is that? The reality in which chiefs of state who are involved in bloody battles – by either killing or defending themselves abusively, or even both – will never voluntarily attend the International Criminal Court. And the ICC will find practical difficulty to arrest the accused because the country where he is – his own country or any other where he might be visiting — does not authorize the arrest, using the principle of sovereignty as an excuse. Even if the accused eventually feels compelled to attend, if only to improbably justify himself, he will never dare to put his freedom at risk. After all, he knows that in the Court there will be an entrance gate, but not an exit one. His victims, almost always individually unknown to him – will have already been heard. The Court will be influenced – if not vexed – since the beginning by the barbarian reports it will have heard, without which the process wouldn´t even have started. It is important to note that in this initial phase the accused´s witnesses are not heard (unless I am mistaken).
The instructing judge will almost certainly determine the arrest of the accused which has attended the trial either before or after its deposition, as a guarantee that he will be present at the final stage – the trial itself. At the latter, as already mentioned, he “must be present” (art. 63). Every chief of state in the position of “accused” will be under the (not always wrong) impression that behind all the legal framework there is a political interest – which there always in, in varied degrees. When the political or religious violence starts, brutal attacks from both sides are almost a certainty. In addition to that, not every barbaric act committed in vast and deflagrated regions derive from an order issued by the chief of state, whether he is a tyrant or not. Sadistic subordinates also enjoy any opportunity they have to give in to their tendencies.
As I have already mentioned in a previous article, Kadhafi is no model governor. He is a despot, and very far from being an enlightened one. And rumor has it that he has millions of dollars in some off-shore bank accounts - a probable burden to his country. The only thing that is left to know – in order to legally support or not the revolted people – is the level of spontaneous support which he has from the total population. It is even possible theoretically – theoretically – that he has more followers than enemies, and if such is the case, NATO would be legally wrong for not respecting the currently in force principle of sovereignty, a concept which, although agonizing — because it leads to manifest abuses —, still appears in the legal manuals as a rule to be respected.
To recap everything, it is necessary that the Rome Statute goes through modifications as follows: when subpoenaed — or its equivalent act — the accused shall be invited to attend. If such a thing doesn´t happen, the lawsuit against him shall move on until the end, with or without the declaration of preventive arrest, which would happen under the discretion of the Court. Even when absent, his lawyers would proceed with his defense. If the Court should want to hear his verbal explanations – to “attest” his sincerity – he might be interrogated from a distance, in front of a television or computer monitor. Nowadays there are plenty of technological devices easily available to study the “body language” of the person who is being interrogated, even thousands of kilometers away. Questions and answers might be followed live all over the planet, lending transparence to the process. Should the Court insist on having him physically present, it would have to give him an absolute guarantee that he would not be arrested should he agree to attend the deposition. However, it is very unlikely that the accused would believe such a promise.
Once the conviction is determined, only then a legitimate “hunt for the criminal” can start. Perhaps, in the future, even with the use of “commands”, something like what happened with Adolfo Eichmann, caught in Argentina by the Mossad. It would then be an arrest with much more global acceptance — after all, the ICC aims for global justice — because there would at least have been a public trial with all defense mechanisms available to the accused.
Such a new system would be much better that having a really important criminal case being stopped because the accused is absent – which is what happens nowadays. And we have to admit that the presence of the accused is not that important for the trial of a case. After all, most of the times the accused lies for his own benefit. Not to mention that his lawyers, who are more experienced than him, know better what is best to be revealed and what is best to be left unsaid.
There are certain procedural rigors which, as a paradox, for being too threatening, end up collaborating with impunity. Such is the case under analysis: since it is not possible to preventively arrest the powerful accused, the latter can brag about not being tried and enjoying a presumption of innocence.
I am unsure whether the aforementioned arguments ignore any legal or philosophical detail which would justify the current system, which, at the end of the day, involuntarily favors great criminals. Should there be any strong argument in favor of the current system, it is necessary for public and legal opinion to make it known. Even if it is to examine it and verify if it is based on common sense – this spice which should never be absent from the judicial activity. Especially in the international trials which have a political and/or religious component, where the notions of right and wrong are poisoned by pre-conceptions learned from childhood. Besides, the UN´s Security Council is not a temple for religious people whose only concern is to save souls. And that´s where the request to arrest the rude and arrogant Kadhafi stemmed from.
May the present article serve at least to provoke a reexamination of a procedural detail which is very important to the prestige and the well-functioning of a Court which was established with the best of intents.
(July 1st, 2011)
Friday, July 15, 2011
The international judicial anarchy and a few confessions
When I was a pre-college student I seriously considered following a diplomatic career. Naively enough, I saw myself in international congresses, getting out of shiny black limousines, carrying briefcases full of important and mysterious documents... In addition to those attractive features, there was also the highly illusory perspective of comfortable overseas trips – travelling by airplane, at that time, was a luxury that only a few could afford. I could live in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Washington, Stockholm, Brussels — a privileged route, ironically known in the diplomatic rounds as the “Elizabeth Arden circuit” — and other cities filled with beautiful blue-eyed Valkyries who would look at me with romantic admiration and welcome me, considering attractive my qualifications as a diplomat and the perspective of having a life full of free tourism and dollars as a diplomat´s wife.
Besides, there was the cultural side: quickly learning new languages; “drinking” from ancient cultures, straight from their sources; reading extensively, without fear of being mistaken as a tramp; dealing with extremely refined and educated people, who would never resort to shouting and insulting in order to express their opinions - which would always be sincere and respectful to the International Law.
In summation, at roughly 17 I imagined diplomacy as a kind of elegant tourism, well-paid, highly intellectualized and submitted to the fair and perfect International Law, working like a Swiss clock in its maximum precision.
However, my “diplomatic illusions” have gradually been rectified. In the last few years, after retiring as a Court of Appeals judge in Brazil, I´ve been lividly following international politics through newspapers, magazines and the internet. Notably, I have been reading between the lines spoken and written by politicians and commentators. As a consequence, I have been gradually noticing that the old and primitive “Mrs. Strength”, along with her faithful companion – “the persistent and elaborate lie” –, still rule the world. They take for granted that readers are mostly uninformed and not so clever; that they are gullible and easily manipulated, only thinking through the crutches of “clichés”. If a small number of voters are not deceived, it doesn´t matter, because these are the minority. “What really matters...” — and what comforts the media owners who are only interested in money—“... are the statistics, the climb or fall in the opinion polls. After all, isn´t democracy based on the majority? And how are majorities formed? With money, advertising and skillful writers who have decided to turn our brains into slot machines”.
My amazement has been growing, appalled by the cynicism of the public announcements made by representatives from some strong governments, who aren´t even trying to disguise their position as defenders of the undefendable. The mere force - political, economical and military —, grounded on interests, is what still prevails in international politics, which causes many distortions. In important decisions, the stronger powers firstly ask the weaker ones to vote in such and such resolution from the UN´s Security Council. If there is any resistance from the weaker ones, the request becomes an order. Otherwise (i.e., if they don´t vote accordingly), they will suffer the consequences - not necessarily military consequences (although those remain implicit, since “all options are still on the table”, an arrogant sentence exhaustively repeated by featherless parrots). The threat of financial non-cooperation may scare some countries even more than the threat of pointing canons towards desperate leaders with a lack of resources. Barack Obama´s current psychological version — that he needs financial support to his reelection plans – doesn´t hesitate to “act firmly” when this means improved chances of a new term.
A few weeks ago, it was revealed that NATO airplanes had bombed the palace where Libyan dictator Khadafi lives, with hopes of killing him. Khadafi, incidentally, wasn´t there. However, one of his sons, along with two grandsons and a few servants, died in the attack. In view of that, the angry part of the population who supports him attacked embassies of western countries which support the rebel movement with weapons, planes and military assistance. As Khadafi didn´t reprimand by force the invaders of those embassies, the same governments which previously had tried to assassinate him felt injured and now intend to sue the dictator in the international courts – solemnly invoking the international right of protection held by the embassies – as well as other retaliations against the “arrogance” of the dictator who escaped from the bombs thrown against him by mere chance. It really requires a great dose of cynicism to expose legal indignation against your intended murder victim.
There is no doubt that Muamar Khadafi is a primitive dictator who doesn´t even bother with appearances anymore. He has refused to vacate his “job” as president because he doesn´t formally see himself as “president” – this position doesn´t even exist in Libya nowadays. Libya doesn´t even have a constitution . It is power, pure and simple. Notwithstanding, there is no certainty on whether the majority of the Libyan population disapproves of his permanence in the position. Oddly enough, it is even possible that a fair public opinion poll, done by trustworthy Western entities, would show that the majority of the population is against an expulsion of Khadafi by force.
It is certain that thousands of opponents manifested on the streets with the intent of deposing him. These thousands – millions, even – may in fact represent a minority. Therefore, respecting the current principle of sovereignty – through which each country decides its own fate — there is no way to consider as legitimate the Western support to the taking down of a governor by force, whether he is a dictator or not - especially through a murder attempt.
Under a legal view, as long as there is no universal Law – or, say, a World Federative Government —, stating that henceforth it is no longer up to the citizens to decide on their own about who should govern them, any action which allows for countries to collaborate with weapons and other resources to depose or assassinate dictators, as unpleasant as they might be, is an insult to international lawfulness. It is up to the people alone to take action against its dictator. And especially considering that any “external collaboration” may very well be in fact covering up a hidden interest – for instance, if the insurgence happens in an oil-filled country.
Let us remind ourselves that Pinochet was a self-confessed dictator and that the “powers that be” never tried to depose him, even in face of his despise to Chileans´ human rights (not to mention the rights of any socialism activist which dared to set foot in Chile). Stalin was a dictator who had the support of the great majority of Russians at his time, notably while resisting the attempted Nazi invasion. Back to Khadafi, the argument that he should be eliminated by NATO because he commits crimes against humanity when he butchers those who try to get rid of him must be put at the margin of the international law, considering the current – even if old-fashioned – concept of sovereignty. It is a fact that this concept must be modified, restricted even, when it is carried out in an uncivil manner. However, this modification must be done in the clear, through serious discussion at the UN, formally regulating the subject – and not through subterfuges which are convenient under a political or economical perspective.
I have absolutely no sympathy at all to the unpleasant and political figure of Khadafi. I would never be sad if he ever suffered a heart attack. I am merely trying to put under attention the need for coherence in international politics.
Another example of mental dishonesty in international politics and its practice is well demonstrated in the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
For a long time, Israel has created subterfuges for not setting with the Palestinians the borders which would separate both populations, Jews and Arabs, and consequently granting the latter the status of Nation. Without such status, Palestinians are unable to claim anything against eventual abuses from Israel, including territorial ones, because, as we are all well aware of, only proper Nations are capable of proposing anything at the International Court of Justice. The main argument used by Israel to justify not following the peace talks is the fact that the Palestinians are divided into two hostile factions: the “Fatah” in the West Bank and the “Hamas” at the Gaza Strip. Israeli governors argue that “It is not possible to talk to the Palestinians because we can never know who in fact represents them, whether it is Fatah or Hamas”.
At last the Palestinians decided to be sensible and reached an agreement a short time ago, ending the double representation of the Arabs. And what was Israel´s reaction? A fake “indignation”, since Hamas is still hostile to Israel´s own existence - a hostility which is relatively common in the international community, but without annihilating consequences. More calamitous than two Nations separated by a border is for the current conflict to keep going on with isolated Islamic acts of terrorism followed by Israeli retaliation through air attacks, which kill even more that the suicidal explosions.
France, England and Germany were reciprocally hostile to one another for centuries in the past. None of them vanished and nowadays they cohabit wonderfully. The thing is that even if Hamas eventually says that it has abandoned the demagogical rhetoric of “sweeping Israel off the map” — a monumental stupidity, since Israel is incredibly powerful and has the American support— such a declaration from the Arabs would be rejected by Israel with the argument of being a false affirmation. And therefore, being false, deserving of some bombing. To crown Israel´s prepotency, the unbelievable Minister of Foreign Relations, Avigdor Lieberman, has announced the blocking of eight hundred million dollars in taxes which the country annually transfers to the Palestinian Authority. In summation, Avigdor is retaining money which does not belong to the Nation he represents. He wants to massacre through poverty people who have been persecuted and humiliated for too long. The question any sensible person would ask is “how long will the people of Israel — wise people, who have always valued “the Book”, who are morally neither better nor worse than any other people—, tolerate being run by politicians who have absolutely no discernment at all and who stimulate the world´s growing animosity against their own people?
What do the Palestinian refugees think nowadays - people who have been expelled from their homes and have to live in refugee camps? And what will their sons, grandsons and grand grandsons feel? Will they ever think of going back, filled with love in their hearts?
This is where I stop, considering that going further would lead to infinite unfolding.
(June 5th, 2011)
Besides, there was the cultural side: quickly learning new languages; “drinking” from ancient cultures, straight from their sources; reading extensively, without fear of being mistaken as a tramp; dealing with extremely refined and educated people, who would never resort to shouting and insulting in order to express their opinions - which would always be sincere and respectful to the International Law.
In summation, at roughly 17 I imagined diplomacy as a kind of elegant tourism, well-paid, highly intellectualized and submitted to the fair and perfect International Law, working like a Swiss clock in its maximum precision.
However, my “diplomatic illusions” have gradually been rectified. In the last few years, after retiring as a Court of Appeals judge in Brazil, I´ve been lividly following international politics through newspapers, magazines and the internet. Notably, I have been reading between the lines spoken and written by politicians and commentators. As a consequence, I have been gradually noticing that the old and primitive “Mrs. Strength”, along with her faithful companion – “the persistent and elaborate lie” –, still rule the world. They take for granted that readers are mostly uninformed and not so clever; that they are gullible and easily manipulated, only thinking through the crutches of “clichés”. If a small number of voters are not deceived, it doesn´t matter, because these are the minority. “What really matters...” — and what comforts the media owners who are only interested in money—“... are the statistics, the climb or fall in the opinion polls. After all, isn´t democracy based on the majority? And how are majorities formed? With money, advertising and skillful writers who have decided to turn our brains into slot machines”.
My amazement has been growing, appalled by the cynicism of the public announcements made by representatives from some strong governments, who aren´t even trying to disguise their position as defenders of the undefendable. The mere force - political, economical and military —, grounded on interests, is what still prevails in international politics, which causes many distortions. In important decisions, the stronger powers firstly ask the weaker ones to vote in such and such resolution from the UN´s Security Council. If there is any resistance from the weaker ones, the request becomes an order. Otherwise (i.e., if they don´t vote accordingly), they will suffer the consequences - not necessarily military consequences (although those remain implicit, since “all options are still on the table”, an arrogant sentence exhaustively repeated by featherless parrots). The threat of financial non-cooperation may scare some countries even more than the threat of pointing canons towards desperate leaders with a lack of resources. Barack Obama´s current psychological version — that he needs financial support to his reelection plans – doesn´t hesitate to “act firmly” when this means improved chances of a new term.
A few weeks ago, it was revealed that NATO airplanes had bombed the palace where Libyan dictator Khadafi lives, with hopes of killing him. Khadafi, incidentally, wasn´t there. However, one of his sons, along with two grandsons and a few servants, died in the attack. In view of that, the angry part of the population who supports him attacked embassies of western countries which support the rebel movement with weapons, planes and military assistance. As Khadafi didn´t reprimand by force the invaders of those embassies, the same governments which previously had tried to assassinate him felt injured and now intend to sue the dictator in the international courts – solemnly invoking the international right of protection held by the embassies – as well as other retaliations against the “arrogance” of the dictator who escaped from the bombs thrown against him by mere chance. It really requires a great dose of cynicism to expose legal indignation against your intended murder victim.
There is no doubt that Muamar Khadafi is a primitive dictator who doesn´t even bother with appearances anymore. He has refused to vacate his “job” as president because he doesn´t formally see himself as “president” – this position doesn´t even exist in Libya nowadays. Libya doesn´t even have a constitution . It is power, pure and simple. Notwithstanding, there is no certainty on whether the majority of the Libyan population disapproves of his permanence in the position. Oddly enough, it is even possible that a fair public opinion poll, done by trustworthy Western entities, would show that the majority of the population is against an expulsion of Khadafi by force.
It is certain that thousands of opponents manifested on the streets with the intent of deposing him. These thousands – millions, even – may in fact represent a minority. Therefore, respecting the current principle of sovereignty – through which each country decides its own fate — there is no way to consider as legitimate the Western support to the taking down of a governor by force, whether he is a dictator or not - especially through a murder attempt.
Under a legal view, as long as there is no universal Law – or, say, a World Federative Government —, stating that henceforth it is no longer up to the citizens to decide on their own about who should govern them, any action which allows for countries to collaborate with weapons and other resources to depose or assassinate dictators, as unpleasant as they might be, is an insult to international lawfulness. It is up to the people alone to take action against its dictator. And especially considering that any “external collaboration” may very well be in fact covering up a hidden interest – for instance, if the insurgence happens in an oil-filled country.
Let us remind ourselves that Pinochet was a self-confessed dictator and that the “powers that be” never tried to depose him, even in face of his despise to Chileans´ human rights (not to mention the rights of any socialism activist which dared to set foot in Chile). Stalin was a dictator who had the support of the great majority of Russians at his time, notably while resisting the attempted Nazi invasion. Back to Khadafi, the argument that he should be eliminated by NATO because he commits crimes against humanity when he butchers those who try to get rid of him must be put at the margin of the international law, considering the current – even if old-fashioned – concept of sovereignty. It is a fact that this concept must be modified, restricted even, when it is carried out in an uncivil manner. However, this modification must be done in the clear, through serious discussion at the UN, formally regulating the subject – and not through subterfuges which are convenient under a political or economical perspective.
I have absolutely no sympathy at all to the unpleasant and political figure of Khadafi. I would never be sad if he ever suffered a heart attack. I am merely trying to put under attention the need for coherence in international politics.
Another example of mental dishonesty in international politics and its practice is well demonstrated in the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
For a long time, Israel has created subterfuges for not setting with the Palestinians the borders which would separate both populations, Jews and Arabs, and consequently granting the latter the status of Nation. Without such status, Palestinians are unable to claim anything against eventual abuses from Israel, including territorial ones, because, as we are all well aware of, only proper Nations are capable of proposing anything at the International Court of Justice. The main argument used by Israel to justify not following the peace talks is the fact that the Palestinians are divided into two hostile factions: the “Fatah” in the West Bank and the “Hamas” at the Gaza Strip. Israeli governors argue that “It is not possible to talk to the Palestinians because we can never know who in fact represents them, whether it is Fatah or Hamas”.
At last the Palestinians decided to be sensible and reached an agreement a short time ago, ending the double representation of the Arabs. And what was Israel´s reaction? A fake “indignation”, since Hamas is still hostile to Israel´s own existence - a hostility which is relatively common in the international community, but without annihilating consequences. More calamitous than two Nations separated by a border is for the current conflict to keep going on with isolated Islamic acts of terrorism followed by Israeli retaliation through air attacks, which kill even more that the suicidal explosions.
France, England and Germany were reciprocally hostile to one another for centuries in the past. None of them vanished and nowadays they cohabit wonderfully. The thing is that even if Hamas eventually says that it has abandoned the demagogical rhetoric of “sweeping Israel off the map” — a monumental stupidity, since Israel is incredibly powerful and has the American support— such a declaration from the Arabs would be rejected by Israel with the argument of being a false affirmation. And therefore, being false, deserving of some bombing. To crown Israel´s prepotency, the unbelievable Minister of Foreign Relations, Avigdor Lieberman, has announced the blocking of eight hundred million dollars in taxes which the country annually transfers to the Palestinian Authority. In summation, Avigdor is retaining money which does not belong to the Nation he represents. He wants to massacre through poverty people who have been persecuted and humiliated for too long. The question any sensible person would ask is “how long will the people of Israel — wise people, who have always valued “the Book”, who are morally neither better nor worse than any other people—, tolerate being run by politicians who have absolutely no discernment at all and who stimulate the world´s growing animosity against their own people?
What do the Palestinian refugees think nowadays - people who have been expelled from their homes and have to live in refugee camps? And what will their sons, grandsons and grand grandsons feel? Will they ever think of going back, filled with love in their hearts?
This is where I stop, considering that going further would lead to infinite unfolding.
(June 5th, 2011)
Thursday, June 02, 2011
The “theatrics” of Netanyahu: smart but deceiving
Yesterday I watched on television Benjamin Netanyahu´s speech at the American Congress – which was witnessed by congressmen and senators from both main political parties. Barack Obama was away on a trip overseas; luck – or else divine providence – kept him away, because then he avoided the other´s many daring indirect jabs, which were all unanswerable since it is not common practice in such circumstances for a foreign speaker to be interrupted by the representative from the welcoming country.
The “theatre” even seemed rehearsed, although probably not because Netanyahu is a master in the art of sophism as only a few others are. The American congressmen – generally ill-informed about foreign politics and personally uninterested in the growth of Israel — never ceased to applaud and express admiration in a “muscular” enthusiasm – getting up, sitting down, up, down – as if hypnotized by every sentence professed by the foreign leader. It is hard to believe that such an exhaustive gymnastics of arms and legs shaking had not been previously suggested by the event planners. The few ones who did not seem to be happy listening to that hesitated before finally joining the general applause. The reader knows how these things are, after all, everybody has been through such things – in a ceremony, when most of the people are clapping and standing up, we feel almost forced to do the same, in order not to look dissonant.
Now why such criticism directed to the Israeli Premier? Any prejudice against the Jewish people? Not at all, regarding the latter. There are some extraordinary Jews, as there are in all races. However, I have some reservations – and strong ones – against Netanyahu, an astute leader who is tremendously selfish, who is not a good friend of the truth and who is short-sighted when it comes to proposing right and lasting solutions. Propositions which would truly solve the problems of his people and their Semite blood-related people — the Palestines. These ones, for no blame of their own, ended up being punished two thousand years after the violence perpetrated by the Roman Empire who expelled the Jews from Palestine. The expelled ones returned there in the Twentieth Century and, while in need of a proper space to grow and develop, “had no other solution” than to banish the local Arabs. In a paradox, the Jewish Diaspora, despite the undeniable suffering which followed it, brought some benefits to the Jews: the opening of new horizons, the learning of new languages, the dominance of finances, the training and emphasis on tenacity. Had there been no Diaspora, the Jewish people would have remained in the Palestinian territory, raising goats, planting olive trees and living basically as the local Arabs did before the creation of the State of Israel
The Israeli Premier is so obsessed with selfishly favoring his own country – and as a consequence getting more and more electoral prestige – that he forgets the injustices he practices. Einstein — a model Jew, morally and intellectually speaking — used to say that in situations of disagreement we need to always put ourselves in the other´s place, to try to understand the other´s reasons. This is something that Netanyahu never did and never will do because it is not in his nature. And this will be paid in the future by his own people. The moral capital of the Holocaust is being plundered by the successive withdrawals made by politicians who only think of their personal gain, and not in their own people.
Cunning is a rudimentary form of intelligence because most of the times it just deceives or procrastinates. It doesn´t solve, it patches. It doesn´t deactivate “bombs” originated from resentment with reason. The bomb, in a figurative sense – or proper sense, as is the case of the Middle East – will explode some time afterwards. In order for it not to explode it will have to be drenched in blood. The wick connected to the dynamite might be long, but one day it will eventually reach its end.
And which wick is this, in the present case? The understandable Palestine hatred, which spreads to the rest of the Arab world, a hatred accumulated for decades and derived from the excessive occupation of land, ill-treatment, bureaucratic abuse, barriers and the expulsion of Arabic communities which had been there for more than two thousand years.
Netanyahu seems never to have heard of “usucaption”, a legal term which recognizes that when a property is abandoned for a given time its property rights go to the individual who is occupying it. In Internacional Law, as far as I know – which is not much, in this specific subject — it seems not to exist the aforementioned “usucaption” with strict rules; however, an analogy of situations with what occurs on a private level is already an indication that the return of the Jews to the Palestine two thousand years ago was a political mistake which might result in the burning of the world, even leading to a Third World War. It just turns out that this mistake has been consolidated. There is no way to go back in time. There isn´t even a way to think of a Second Holocaust, even though we are already witnessing its bastard puppy, a “mini-holocaust”, a “lighter version”, whose victims are Palestinian refugees.
Israel nowadays has eight million inhabitants. Not as a mere coincidence, the number of Palestinian refugees which were expelled from their homes and who now live in tents and precarious shelters in neighboring countries, anxious to return home, is also close to eight million. Two bodies can´t occupy the same place at the same time. Hence, the need for the weakest one to “get the hell out without complaining to the bishop!”, as Netanyahu suggests.
The “Bishop”, in this case, would be the International Court of Justice, which can´t be accessed by the Palestinians because only constituted states have such a right. And for that end they would need help from Israel itself, which has every political reason not to help them to achieve such a legal status. “Why should we torment ourselves with Palestinian demands at the International Court of Justice”?
Persecuted people of any race, traumatized by bad memories (European ones in this case), are easy prey to politicians who stimulate fear and doubt, transforming former persecuted into new persecutors. The demagogical promise – made by Hamas and the Iranian president – to “sweep Israel from the map” is a clear silliness conceived to please voters who are exasperated by the Israeli impunity. Not even the most ardent enemy of the State of Israel, when lucid, believes in this imaginary broom, even if Iran indeed builds its nuclear weapons. Iran, in case it does an insane attack, would be incinerated in the same day – or the next, at most. If Israel has the right to manufacture atomic weapons, using as an excuse the fear for its own destruction, similar excuses and rights can be attributed to Iran, aware of Israel´s “hunger for land”.
Israel is the most powerful country of the Middle East in terms of conventional weaponry. As for nuclear ones, it is the only country which has the right to own them. And it doesn´t have to allow inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency because it never signed the “non-proliferation agreement”. Even with so many privileges, Israel still feels “offended” – or else falsely afraid – by – or for – the eventuality that Iran one day produces nuclear weapons. For this reason, it threateningly demands that Iran renounces its advancements in the practical knowledge of nuclear energy, regardless of whether it is for peaceful or military purposes. And this coming from a country which is capable of building not only nuclear plants but also, at least in theory, bombs. It insists – as if it were its divine right – to “be the boss”, irrestrictly, through a monopoly which can lead to abuses. And to Netanyahu, the enlightened sovereign, it really doesn´t matter that Iran subsists mainly through oil, which is a limitation and which eventually will cease naturally or for ecological reasons. And then, where will Iran obtain the energy it needs, especially with land which is not suitable for agriculture? Why does only Israel have the right to be feared in the whole region? Can´t it, at least in theory, abuse such power? It is important here to remember that absolute power might absolutely corrupt.
Another evidence of Netanyahu´s impressive dominance tendency is the demand for Hamas not to participate in any way on the future negotiations regarding the creation of a Palestinian state. If both Palestinian factions, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, decide to unite, it is none of Israel´s business. It would be the same thing if, in a negotiation between Argentina and Brazil, the former demanded that no politician from PT, PSDB or PMDB (three of the main Brazilian political parties) ever participated in the negotiations. Deep down, such maneuvers aim mainly on creating excuses and difficulties, to delay the fixation of frontiers while the Jewish settlements are expanded in the West Bank.
To Netanyahu, “terrorism” is a label which can only be used for others. He forgets that terrorism can happen in any country where its inhabitants feel oppressed by outsiders and the problem cannot be solved with good manners or though a legal way. If – incredibly hypothetically speaking – Chinese troops invaded the USA, hundreds of Americans – the fierce, most temperamental ones – would probably resort to terrorist acts against the invaders. The Jews themselves had their “proud” terrorist phase when in the 1940´s they were prevented by the British to create an Israeli state in the Palestine.
Osama bin Laden was a really reproachable terrorist by killing innocents. He was incredibly stupid with the 9/11 event, turning the whole civilized world against his cause. His hatred against America derived mainly from the USA´s unconditional support to Israel. Had there been no such support, probably there never would have been a 9/11. Whoever has the trouble to research and read on the internet a collection of speeches made by the terrorist - “Bin Laden quotes” or “quotations” – will have no doubt about how much the Palestinian situation was important in motivating the 2001 attacks. Had there been peace in that region, even if not entirely ideal, probably the Twin Towers would still be standing.
On July 22nd, 1946, “Hotel King David”, located in Jerusalem, was exploded, causing the death of 91 people — 28 British, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews (which were there by mistake) and 5 people from other nationalities – as well as hundreds of wounded ones. Taking responsibility for such terrorist act was a Jewish movement known as Irgun Zvai Leumi, made up by those who insisted on creating the Israeli state. Why that hotel? Because that was where most of the British governmental employees lived in the Palestine. At that time it was the British who managed that region, as determined by the predecessor of the United Nations.
This well-known historical fact has often been “forgotten” in Netanyahu´s speeches through the years. Netanyahu has even mentioned that terrorism is an intrinsically criminal act, as if there had never been a Jewish terrorist act. For him, only the Arab terrorism is wrong. And as much as he apparently is uninterested in History, he knew of such fact because he was present, along with other politicians from the right, at a commemorative event for the 60th anniversary of the terrorist act which destroyed the hotel, a seven-floored building. According to Wikipedia, in this celebratory event a commemorative plaque was put on, recognizing the merits of the Jewish terrorist organization. This is only one of the reasons why I don´t believe in a word said by this citizen who, unfortunately for the Jewish people, should have a different profession. He would certainly be a great real estate agent, stock broker or sales manager, considering his persuasive powers.
Terrorism — when motivated by an authentic hatred and not financial greed — is the reaction of the more hot-tempered against situations of injustice. Among the wronged ones, some are more prudent (e.g., Mahmoud Abbas), others are more aggressive (e.g., the Hamas leaders). There is no way to prevent this variation of moods. And it is useless to try to eliminate terrorism for good without touching the deep cause with originated it. Netanyahu says that Israel is a democracy and that human rights are protected there. Israel is in fact a democracy, but such rights have been denied to many Palestinians. They had to flee to avoid persecution. Millions of them can attest to that.
The only true solution to the Palestinian conflict would be for the international community to step forward in a daring and fair move, altering the Charter of the United Nations and creating a committee of notables – the more notable the better – who, after listening to both parties, would establish the frontiers of both states. After all, a judicial decision does not have the obligation to please both parties. To foolishly demand that “both parties sit down and reach an agreement” is to play Netanyahu´s game, who, deep down, wants to be remembered by future generations as a kind of prophet who turned a tiny state into a huge nation.
When you see in the map how far the Gaza Strip is from the West Bank, it is predictable that such detail might bring even more problems than the ones usually talked about publicly. There is no rhyme nor reason to the creation of a Palestinian State divided into two distant areas. Only fresh and experienced minds who have no personal relation to the subject – international judges with no Arab or Jewish origin – might be able to solve the problem, which is something that is never mentioned. We can never forget the utter intransigence and stubbornness of both religions which, even sharing the same and unique god, will never reach an agreement.
Are the expelled Palestinians unable to return to the Israeli State – as its future borders – because the return would result in an inevitable uproar? May this be taken into consideration by the future arbiters, should it be true. Experienced international judges will know how to compensate this non-return with reasonable concessions. It is patent that the West Bank shall not be separated from the Gaza Strip and without access to the sea.
Such propositions are mere suggestions, perhaps mistaken when put on a map. The essential thing is to point out that the “cool head” in the international judges will be much wiser than the “boiling head” of Jews and Palestinians, incapable of dismantling the gravest current danger to the world peace. When the Palestinians are calmed, the so-called “Islamic Terror” will eventually disappear.
The International Law is pretty elegant. Its profound specialists – not my case, by the way, since I am merely an admirer - lack, however, the audacity to try some “innovation” in the documents which regulate the powers of international justice. Without a solution “from the outside” and mandatory, the planet might find itself in another global conflict. No one can safely predict what might result from the Arab upheaval. If everybody sympathizes with the Palestinians, the already hot atmosphere will only boil. And all because nobody who understands the subject bothers to think of a renovation at the United Nations, especially in the area of International Justice.
May God have mercy on the Middle East. Because the Devil won´t. Think about this, Netanyahu. You can still revert your reputation among the Arabs. Who knows if one day the Arabs might even applaud you. Everyone deserves a second chance.
(May 24th, 2011)
The “theatre” even seemed rehearsed, although probably not because Netanyahu is a master in the art of sophism as only a few others are. The American congressmen – generally ill-informed about foreign politics and personally uninterested in the growth of Israel — never ceased to applaud and express admiration in a “muscular” enthusiasm – getting up, sitting down, up, down – as if hypnotized by every sentence professed by the foreign leader. It is hard to believe that such an exhaustive gymnastics of arms and legs shaking had not been previously suggested by the event planners. The few ones who did not seem to be happy listening to that hesitated before finally joining the general applause. The reader knows how these things are, after all, everybody has been through such things – in a ceremony, when most of the people are clapping and standing up, we feel almost forced to do the same, in order not to look dissonant.
Now why such criticism directed to the Israeli Premier? Any prejudice against the Jewish people? Not at all, regarding the latter. There are some extraordinary Jews, as there are in all races. However, I have some reservations – and strong ones – against Netanyahu, an astute leader who is tremendously selfish, who is not a good friend of the truth and who is short-sighted when it comes to proposing right and lasting solutions. Propositions which would truly solve the problems of his people and their Semite blood-related people — the Palestines. These ones, for no blame of their own, ended up being punished two thousand years after the violence perpetrated by the Roman Empire who expelled the Jews from Palestine. The expelled ones returned there in the Twentieth Century and, while in need of a proper space to grow and develop, “had no other solution” than to banish the local Arabs. In a paradox, the Jewish Diaspora, despite the undeniable suffering which followed it, brought some benefits to the Jews: the opening of new horizons, the learning of new languages, the dominance of finances, the training and emphasis on tenacity. Had there been no Diaspora, the Jewish people would have remained in the Palestinian territory, raising goats, planting olive trees and living basically as the local Arabs did before the creation of the State of Israel
The Israeli Premier is so obsessed with selfishly favoring his own country – and as a consequence getting more and more electoral prestige – that he forgets the injustices he practices. Einstein — a model Jew, morally and intellectually speaking — used to say that in situations of disagreement we need to always put ourselves in the other´s place, to try to understand the other´s reasons. This is something that Netanyahu never did and never will do because it is not in his nature. And this will be paid in the future by his own people. The moral capital of the Holocaust is being plundered by the successive withdrawals made by politicians who only think of their personal gain, and not in their own people.
Cunning is a rudimentary form of intelligence because most of the times it just deceives or procrastinates. It doesn´t solve, it patches. It doesn´t deactivate “bombs” originated from resentment with reason. The bomb, in a figurative sense – or proper sense, as is the case of the Middle East – will explode some time afterwards. In order for it not to explode it will have to be drenched in blood. The wick connected to the dynamite might be long, but one day it will eventually reach its end.
And which wick is this, in the present case? The understandable Palestine hatred, which spreads to the rest of the Arab world, a hatred accumulated for decades and derived from the excessive occupation of land, ill-treatment, bureaucratic abuse, barriers and the expulsion of Arabic communities which had been there for more than two thousand years.
Netanyahu seems never to have heard of “usucaption”, a legal term which recognizes that when a property is abandoned for a given time its property rights go to the individual who is occupying it. In Internacional Law, as far as I know – which is not much, in this specific subject — it seems not to exist the aforementioned “usucaption” with strict rules; however, an analogy of situations with what occurs on a private level is already an indication that the return of the Jews to the Palestine two thousand years ago was a political mistake which might result in the burning of the world, even leading to a Third World War. It just turns out that this mistake has been consolidated. There is no way to go back in time. There isn´t even a way to think of a Second Holocaust, even though we are already witnessing its bastard puppy, a “mini-holocaust”, a “lighter version”, whose victims are Palestinian refugees.
Israel nowadays has eight million inhabitants. Not as a mere coincidence, the number of Palestinian refugees which were expelled from their homes and who now live in tents and precarious shelters in neighboring countries, anxious to return home, is also close to eight million. Two bodies can´t occupy the same place at the same time. Hence, the need for the weakest one to “get the hell out without complaining to the bishop!”, as Netanyahu suggests.
The “Bishop”, in this case, would be the International Court of Justice, which can´t be accessed by the Palestinians because only constituted states have such a right. And for that end they would need help from Israel itself, which has every political reason not to help them to achieve such a legal status. “Why should we torment ourselves with Palestinian demands at the International Court of Justice”?
Persecuted people of any race, traumatized by bad memories (European ones in this case), are easy prey to politicians who stimulate fear and doubt, transforming former persecuted into new persecutors. The demagogical promise – made by Hamas and the Iranian president – to “sweep Israel from the map” is a clear silliness conceived to please voters who are exasperated by the Israeli impunity. Not even the most ardent enemy of the State of Israel, when lucid, believes in this imaginary broom, even if Iran indeed builds its nuclear weapons. Iran, in case it does an insane attack, would be incinerated in the same day – or the next, at most. If Israel has the right to manufacture atomic weapons, using as an excuse the fear for its own destruction, similar excuses and rights can be attributed to Iran, aware of Israel´s “hunger for land”.
Israel is the most powerful country of the Middle East in terms of conventional weaponry. As for nuclear ones, it is the only country which has the right to own them. And it doesn´t have to allow inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency because it never signed the “non-proliferation agreement”. Even with so many privileges, Israel still feels “offended” – or else falsely afraid – by – or for – the eventuality that Iran one day produces nuclear weapons. For this reason, it threateningly demands that Iran renounces its advancements in the practical knowledge of nuclear energy, regardless of whether it is for peaceful or military purposes. And this coming from a country which is capable of building not only nuclear plants but also, at least in theory, bombs. It insists – as if it were its divine right – to “be the boss”, irrestrictly, through a monopoly which can lead to abuses. And to Netanyahu, the enlightened sovereign, it really doesn´t matter that Iran subsists mainly through oil, which is a limitation and which eventually will cease naturally or for ecological reasons. And then, where will Iran obtain the energy it needs, especially with land which is not suitable for agriculture? Why does only Israel have the right to be feared in the whole region? Can´t it, at least in theory, abuse such power? It is important here to remember that absolute power might absolutely corrupt.
Another evidence of Netanyahu´s impressive dominance tendency is the demand for Hamas not to participate in any way on the future negotiations regarding the creation of a Palestinian state. If both Palestinian factions, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, decide to unite, it is none of Israel´s business. It would be the same thing if, in a negotiation between Argentina and Brazil, the former demanded that no politician from PT, PSDB or PMDB (three of the main Brazilian political parties) ever participated in the negotiations. Deep down, such maneuvers aim mainly on creating excuses and difficulties, to delay the fixation of frontiers while the Jewish settlements are expanded in the West Bank.
To Netanyahu, “terrorism” is a label which can only be used for others. He forgets that terrorism can happen in any country where its inhabitants feel oppressed by outsiders and the problem cannot be solved with good manners or though a legal way. If – incredibly hypothetically speaking – Chinese troops invaded the USA, hundreds of Americans – the fierce, most temperamental ones – would probably resort to terrorist acts against the invaders. The Jews themselves had their “proud” terrorist phase when in the 1940´s they were prevented by the British to create an Israeli state in the Palestine.
Osama bin Laden was a really reproachable terrorist by killing innocents. He was incredibly stupid with the 9/11 event, turning the whole civilized world against his cause. His hatred against America derived mainly from the USA´s unconditional support to Israel. Had there been no such support, probably there never would have been a 9/11. Whoever has the trouble to research and read on the internet a collection of speeches made by the terrorist - “Bin Laden quotes” or “quotations” – will have no doubt about how much the Palestinian situation was important in motivating the 2001 attacks. Had there been peace in that region, even if not entirely ideal, probably the Twin Towers would still be standing.
On July 22nd, 1946, “Hotel King David”, located in Jerusalem, was exploded, causing the death of 91 people — 28 British, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews (which were there by mistake) and 5 people from other nationalities – as well as hundreds of wounded ones. Taking responsibility for such terrorist act was a Jewish movement known as Irgun Zvai Leumi, made up by those who insisted on creating the Israeli state. Why that hotel? Because that was where most of the British governmental employees lived in the Palestine. At that time it was the British who managed that region, as determined by the predecessor of the United Nations.
This well-known historical fact has often been “forgotten” in Netanyahu´s speeches through the years. Netanyahu has even mentioned that terrorism is an intrinsically criminal act, as if there had never been a Jewish terrorist act. For him, only the Arab terrorism is wrong. And as much as he apparently is uninterested in History, he knew of such fact because he was present, along with other politicians from the right, at a commemorative event for the 60th anniversary of the terrorist act which destroyed the hotel, a seven-floored building. According to Wikipedia, in this celebratory event a commemorative plaque was put on, recognizing the merits of the Jewish terrorist organization. This is only one of the reasons why I don´t believe in a word said by this citizen who, unfortunately for the Jewish people, should have a different profession. He would certainly be a great real estate agent, stock broker or sales manager, considering his persuasive powers.
Terrorism — when motivated by an authentic hatred and not financial greed — is the reaction of the more hot-tempered against situations of injustice. Among the wronged ones, some are more prudent (e.g., Mahmoud Abbas), others are more aggressive (e.g., the Hamas leaders). There is no way to prevent this variation of moods. And it is useless to try to eliminate terrorism for good without touching the deep cause with originated it. Netanyahu says that Israel is a democracy and that human rights are protected there. Israel is in fact a democracy, but such rights have been denied to many Palestinians. They had to flee to avoid persecution. Millions of them can attest to that.
The only true solution to the Palestinian conflict would be for the international community to step forward in a daring and fair move, altering the Charter of the United Nations and creating a committee of notables – the more notable the better – who, after listening to both parties, would establish the frontiers of both states. After all, a judicial decision does not have the obligation to please both parties. To foolishly demand that “both parties sit down and reach an agreement” is to play Netanyahu´s game, who, deep down, wants to be remembered by future generations as a kind of prophet who turned a tiny state into a huge nation.
When you see in the map how far the Gaza Strip is from the West Bank, it is predictable that such detail might bring even more problems than the ones usually talked about publicly. There is no rhyme nor reason to the creation of a Palestinian State divided into two distant areas. Only fresh and experienced minds who have no personal relation to the subject – international judges with no Arab or Jewish origin – might be able to solve the problem, which is something that is never mentioned. We can never forget the utter intransigence and stubbornness of both religions which, even sharing the same and unique god, will never reach an agreement.
Are the expelled Palestinians unable to return to the Israeli State – as its future borders – because the return would result in an inevitable uproar? May this be taken into consideration by the future arbiters, should it be true. Experienced international judges will know how to compensate this non-return with reasonable concessions. It is patent that the West Bank shall not be separated from the Gaza Strip and without access to the sea.
Such propositions are mere suggestions, perhaps mistaken when put on a map. The essential thing is to point out that the “cool head” in the international judges will be much wiser than the “boiling head” of Jews and Palestinians, incapable of dismantling the gravest current danger to the world peace. When the Palestinians are calmed, the so-called “Islamic Terror” will eventually disappear.
The International Law is pretty elegant. Its profound specialists – not my case, by the way, since I am merely an admirer - lack, however, the audacity to try some “innovation” in the documents which regulate the powers of international justice. Without a solution “from the outside” and mandatory, the planet might find itself in another global conflict. No one can safely predict what might result from the Arab upheaval. If everybody sympathizes with the Palestinians, the already hot atmosphere will only boil. And all because nobody who understands the subject bothers to think of a renovation at the United Nations, especially in the area of International Justice.
May God have mercy on the Middle East. Because the Devil won´t. Think about this, Netanyahu. You can still revert your reputation among the Arabs. Who knows if one day the Arabs might even applaud you. Everyone deserves a second chance.
(May 24th, 2011)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)